Five Tomes Against Nestorius

He that durst say that the good glory of the Only-Begotten has been ascribed to the power of Christ, and that plucked asunder the bond of Oneness, gathers again into union and again dissolves it and parts the natures one from other. And most plentifully does he vainly talk and rhodomontade to us respecting these things, so that even though he should say ought that tendeth unto orthodoxy, he may be clearly convicted of not knowing what he saith. For he says here that the Word of God "is both Son and God even before the Incarnation, moreover that in the last times He took the form of a servant." Tell me therefore, if I do not seem to thee to say what is meet, Who is it now that is said to be made man? and what dost thou say that being made man is? who is he that took the servant's form? and how was it taken by him? That in saying therefore that a man was made man, you will display as worthy of ridicule your own understanding, how can one doubt? for he that is man by nature, how will he be made what he was, and pass as though to somewhat else, in respect I mean of nature? that which in its own nature is not free, how will it be said to have become bond, as though it were not so at the beginning? Hence to have been made man, will not pertain unto a man, far from it, and to take the form of a servant, belongs not to him who even at the beginning has the measure of bondservice, but to Him rather Who being not man by Nature, is believed to have been made so, and Who being Lord of all as God, abased Himself in our condition, uniting to Himself Personally the human nature, and taking the form of the servant. For thus will that too be true which thou saidst, that "after the assumption, He cannot be called Son separately lest we teach the doctrine of two sons."

And the right and unperverted and straight-going path of doctrines, is this and no other. But he again who mentioned to us the being-made-man of the Word Which is forth of the Father, borne almost straightway unto forgetfulness of what he said, severs again into two the One, both in vile sort floating in feeblest ideas and using ever words untested, for he said, "But since he has been connected with Him, Who is in the beginning Son, Who was connected with him, he may not admit of severance, as regards the dignity of sonship, as regards dignity I say of sonship, not as regards the natures." Rightly, my friend, dost thou reject as unprofitable that which seems to be insecure, studiously has it been set before thee to use ever vigilant mode of speech. For lo, lo, severing the natures, thou gatherest them into union as regards the dignity of sonship. Sufficeth therefore unto true union in things by nature severed one from another, the sameness or identity of names and the dignity in respect of this? for thus too does it seem good to thee to say. Therefore since the name Christ, and moreover son and lord, have been given to others too as names common [to several] (for very many have been made christs and have been called sonsand lords); they too will be as regards the dignity of sonship, both disseverable one from another and all of them one in respect of the union which you think was wrought in respect of Christ too. But a man such as we will be wholly distinct from the Word out of God: how therefore they have not been severed, how too there is one son, I cannot conceive, unless we say that the human nature and the Word have come together by a true union.

But since one must, on account of these words of his, carry round the argument even unto absurdity, that on all sides he may be convicted of having thought not aright, come now, come, let us say this too. For if the dignity of sonship suffices unto union, since the Word Which is from forth Him is called and is Son of God the Father, and the name is common to many more, where is the harm (tell me) of saying that the rest too all of them have themselves been united with Him, in order that Emmanuel may have nought more than they? for the claim of the same names will (it seems) be contending with Him and be striving for equality, and the mode of connection will lie in bare and mere appellation or community of name. What then is being made man understood to be? what too the descent in the servant's form? for if the mode of the being made man is (according to him) a mere connection, and consist in the dignity only of sonship what is to hinder our saying that it has been effected in regard to all the rest too? But the friend of learning sees assuredly the uncomeliness of what is said. Whither therefore is he now borne off, distraught, unto things not lawful? by us shall be said to him what is uttered by Jeremiah's voice, Thou waxedst weary in much journeying, for he is tossed to and fro borne about with every wind, as saith the most wise Paul. Therefore receive the anchor of the soul sure and stedfast, set thy feet upon a rock. If thou sayest that the Word of God was made man, this will suffice to shew that He Who is above all the creation was made as we. He took the servant's form although He possessed freedom as God; for He was in equality with the Father, Who possesseth dominion over all. Cease to sever the natures after the union: for that one thing and another is the Divine Nature and the nature of man it will be fit to know, and needful I deem to those who are sound in mind (for they are parted one from another by incomparable differences), but in regard to Christ the Saviour of us all, do thou having brought them togetherinto union true andof Person, reject severance, for thus wilt thou confess one Christ and Son and Lord.

But I know not how the inventor of feeble doctrines has made exceeding petty account of the fact of union, and thrusting away both it (as seems) and the might of the truth, hath gone again unto what liketh himself and saith, "Therefore is God the Word called Christ also, seeing that He hath His connection with Christ perpetual. And it is not possible for God the Word to work ought without the manhood; for it hath been accurately adjusted unto exact connection, not deification, as the wise ones of the neo-dogmatists say." When therefore he says that the Word from forth God the Father has been separately called Christ, as having connection with Christ, i. e., with another, how has he not idly prated in saying that after the assumption He cannot be so styled separately? since not as One is that conceived of by us which is said to have been accidentally connected with ought else, for two of a surety will be rightly conceived to be the things which come together, and not one, itself connected with itself. False speech therefore are his words, and in another sense are they idle talk: but WE after the union, though one name God the Word, conceive not of Him apart from His own flesh; though one say Christ, we recognize the Word Incarnate. What then is the mode of the connection which you speak of conceived to be? for if you say that the human nature has been united Personally with the Word That sprang forth from God, why (tell me) do you insult the Divine Flesh? albeit you refuse not to worship it, while the duty of being worshipped belongs only to the Divine and Ineffable Nature: but if you do not think that a true union took place, but call rather by the name of connection, the rank which consists in identity of name and in mere and only equality of style, why do you prate in solemn language, saying that he that is born of the woman has "been accurately adjusted unto exact connection," i. e., with the Word? for they are synonymous one with another, son with son, and lord with lord, nor are the names a whit inferior one to another, and to inquire into any superiority in them is (I suppose) idle, for son than son qua son, hath neither greater nor less. You are therefore talking superfluously (clearly so) in saying that he has been "accurately adjusted unto exact connection." But to say that they have been accurately adjusted one to another will belong (as appears to me) not to things possessing an identity of name, but to those rather, which obtain the equality and likeness in every thing of things that are believed to be one. As for example we say that there hath been accurately adjusted unto exact correspondence to the form of such an one, either the son that is begotten from out him, or one might say his image: but as regards connection, how can things be conceived of and said to have been accurately adjusted?

But himself interpreted to us the force of connection: for "it is not possible (he says) that God the Word should do ought without the human nature." Likeminded therefore with one another and harmonious according to thee, and from common counsel advancing unto each action shall we believe the pair of sons spoken of by thee. How then are there not two christs and sons and lords? But you affirm (it is like) that the Word used His Body as an instrument. Yet if you say One Son and One Person, the Incarnate Person of the Word, He will not be an instrument of Deity, but rather will use as an instrument His own Body, just as a man's soul too does. Therefore confess One, not dividing the natures, at the same time knowing and holding, that of the flesh the count is one; of the Godhead again, that which beseems It alone: for we say that the flesh of the Word by no means became Godhead, but rather Divine, as being His own. For if the flesh of a man is called human, what hinders that that of God the Word should be called Divine? why then dost them mock at the beauty of the Truth, telling us of the deification of the holy flesh, and all but casting in the teeth of those who have chosen to think aright, a god-making, albeit thyself sayest,

"In order therefore that it might be pointed out to the Magi too, Who this is That is worshipped by them, and to Whom the grace of the Holy Ghost led them—that it was not to a mere babe viewed by itself, but to a body connected ineffably with God."