Five Tomes Against Nestorius

Therefore dost thou say that the Word of God has not been even sent into the world? The most wise Paul hath cozened (it appears) those who were called through him, for he said, God sent forth His Son made of a woman, made under the law: the blessed David too will be found according to thee idly romancing and seeking impossible things, for he said somewhere to God the Father in Heaven, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth. And what (tell me) will not the Son Himself too speak falsely in saying, For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world through Him might he saved, and again, I came forth from the Father and am come. The wise John too writes somewhere of Him, He that receiveth His testimony set to his seal that God is true, for He Whom God sent speaketh God's words. But we say that the Word of God hath been sent, having with the measures of the emptying the name and fact of being sent: but YOU why do you unlearnedly fear and blush to allot to Him the name and fact both of the apostolate and the High-priesthood? would it befit (do you suppose) as other than He, the man born of a woman having (according to you) a mere connection and that in equality of dignity only? how then is the Word being God seen to profit any longer our condition, if we have been even presented to God the Father through another? for no longer have we had the access through Him, but a man like us has become our mediator having the name of Godhead put on.

Yea (says he) the priest's office is petty to the Word begotten out of God the Father. Petty confessedly, I agree with you enunciating the truth, but not in bare Godhead did He dawn on those upon the earth, but rather made man as we, to whom the priesthood is some great and choice thing. But if He refused the priest's office as belonging to man, or indeed ought that appertains to the measure of bond-service, how were it not better far, before this to refuse too the Incarnation?

Yet He rejected not for our sakes the Birth. But this man (as I said) is ashamed of the truth, shewing himself unwise and unskilled, albeit the blessed Paul saith, For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. And one may well marvel that the Word of God for the salvation and life of all endured to suffer so great abasement, which the inventor for us of idle teachings is (I know not how) ashamed merely to acknowledge, albeit he ought to wonder hereat and to cry with the blessed Prophet, O Lord, I have heard Thy report and was afraid, I considered Thy works and was amazed. But since the whole God-inspired Scripture in a manner rises up against him, and arrays against him the truth, shewing that his discourse in favour of his own inventions, cold and without any real being and destitute of support from any quarter, lacks in no small degree the conceptions and ideas that tend unto Tightness and truth; hence what no one of those well reported of for rightness of doctrine, ever either thought or said, this he makes the occasion of his discourse, and fights with shadows and strains himself to no purpose, no one opposing him or wishing to contend about these matters. And this (I deem) is to beat the air. For he said "Who on learning of the ministry of an apostle would not forthwith know that a man is indicated? who on hearing the appellation of High Priest would suppose that the Essence of Godhead were High-Priest?" Since therefore there is no one who says this, with whom (tell me) are you striving, and as though yourself alone were overthrowing what is condemned by the voice of all, are haply thinking that your opposition is worthy even of honours? albeit how is it not true that since no one saith this, it is you who are bringing forward what it were better to be silent on and not to instil into the souls of the more simple? For who is so crazed as to, suppose that the Essence 'of Godhead were High Priest?' Aaron was a man, albeit he obtained preeminence of the rest in Divine Priesthood. How then will any one suppose that the Essence of Godhead is High Priest, or how will he not wholly and surely confess that mention is made of a man when the brother of Moses is named to us as High Priest? Yet he putting forth some language that commonly belongs to and befits every High Priest of those among us, essays to undo the marvel of the Economy understood in Christ, and dares to shake from the very foundations our Divine Mystery, not considering that Christ hath founded the Church upon a rock, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. For he no wise condescends to follow the common doctrine and that of all who are wont to think aright, but he alone innovates without examination what he pleases. For WE (as I said before) say that the Word out of God the Father, made Man, offered to Himself and to the Father the confession of our faith and wrought an Economy befitting and by no means out of harmony with the measures of the emptying. But not so does it seem to him, but he taking separately and apart him that is from forth the holy Virgin as though another Christ than the Word That is out of God the Father, says that he became the Apostle and high priest of our confession and supposes that he is thinking what conduce unto piety when he says, "If God be the offerer, there is none to whom offering is made, for what is there worthy of Godhead that as though less It should make offering to the greater?" Now if there were any who were contending and saying that He That is truly Word out of God the Father had been appointed to office of priesthood even before the Incarnation and were in the measure of ministry and were for this reason to be called High Priest and Apostle, he would have given a wise rebuke, and one would say that his argument hereon had been made in season. For not in lack of priests is the Nature That rules all, that Himself should minister therein. But since the Only-Begotten, being God by Nature and receiving from the hands of those who execute the Priest's office their ministrations, hath descended unto the measure of those appointed unto the priesthood, having become Man (as I said), nought strange will it be if He be called by us High Priest too. Hath He not come down in servant's form, having taken that is the form of a servant, albeit Impress and Brightness of the Father's Glory? None will doubt it. When therefore He Who is in His own Nature Free as God, He Who is in the Form and Equality of the Father, has been called bond, economically not thrusting from Him the measure of those who are under the yoke of bondage, why dost thou fear to call Him High Priest too by reason of the Manhood? for He dedicates us for an odour of a sweet smell through faith, and Himself hath He offered for us as a most sweet-smelling offering to the Father.

But he (saying I know not what) straightway subjoins to these things; "Whence then were God supposed by them to have been now called High Priest Who needeth not sacrifices for His own advancement? is the possessor of Godhead taken from among men appointed for men in things God-ward?" Whence then Christ, i. e., the Word out of God made man, was, or why He was called, Apostle and High Priest, our discourse has already clearly shewn, but I think it right not to leave unexamined his unwonted and strange utterance. For doth he say that the Word out of God is Possessor of Godhead, even though any should wish to conceive of Him apart and without flesh? doth he define His Godhead as other than He? whereof I don't know how (as he saith) He hath become possessor, as though it accrued to Him and came to Him from without, although once not God by Nature, like what was said by that ancient woman, I mean Eve, when she bare Seth, I gat a man through God. But this I deem is wholly to be spurned by him and by all. Why then doth he speak with inexactness, and fling about words without understanding, in matters so cogent? would not one earn laughter and accusal of insanity, if one chose to say that any among us were the possessor of human nature, or a horse of horse-nature? who then is the possessor of Godhead, who taken from men is ordained in things to Godward? Haply he will say severing into two the One Christ, Him that is forth of the Holy Virgin: for to this I suppose now too is his aim directed.

Hath the Godhead then (tell me) become the acquisition of a man, and hath it befallen any one of us, to become God by Nature and in truth and to be rich in the excellence of the Essence that is above all and Supreme? Away with the ill-counsel, o man, for none of those accounted among things generate may acquire and have as his own the Nature of Godhead: His own was the Body of the Word and as one therewith God and Christ and Son and Lord hath the creation worshipped, and the Heavens do praise and we with them. For as the Prophet saith, His Goodness covered the Heavens and of His Praise was the earth full, not as though a man gat Godhead (for how or whence could he?) but that the Word out of God the Father had come into possession of flesh of man. But be it that he who was taken out of men was owner of Godhead (as seems good to yourself), how is he ordained in things to Godward, i. e., as High Priest? will he therefore bare of the Godhead which he gat, minister in the Priest's office to God, or already having it as his own? for this and nought else will the saying that he gat it signify. But if bare of it, he gat it not; if having it as his own, Godhead will surely minister in the Priest's office to God. Why then do you wander distractedly and jumble all together and blush not, stamping with false mark the tradition of the Faith?

The Word out of God the Father hath cogent reason even though He be said to execute the Priest's Office before the Father; for He has been styled Priest not apart from flesh, but made (as I said) as we, to whom the glory of the priesthood is accounted an honour.

In another way too it is not hard to see that it is the absurdest possible thing and replete with much folly to say that he who was taken out of men and ordained unto God-ward, is possessor of Godhead; for if he were taken by God, how possessed he the Nature Which took him? for that which is taken will rather belong to him who took it, as a possession, not that which is taken be the possessor. As for example, A man has become the possessor of wealth, or again of skill unto anything: is it not plain to all that he will not himself be the possession of wealth or again of the skill that accrued to him, but rather the possessor of what he has gotten? but this is I think in no way doubtful.

Hence if on enquiring into the mode of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, we find that man became God as coming into possession of Godhead, let him be called (after your phrase) possessor of Godhead, for his hath the Godhead become. But if the Word being God came into possession of the seed of Abraham, and being in the form of the Father, hath become Man, receiving the servant's form, how would one not be distraught, if he chose to say that that which was taken possessed the Nature That acquired it and hath not rather become the very own of Him Who took it?

But that he carries round the force of his own words and inventions and moreover the very name of high Priesthood in unlearned wise unto a mere man born from forth a woman, bearing it away from the Only-Begotten and Word That is out of the Father, he will make manifest by what follows too: for he has written again on this wise:

"Not Angels doth He take hold of, but Abraham's seed He taketh hold of. Is the Godhead Abraham's seed? Hear the following utterance too: Wherefore it behoved Him, he saith, in all things to be made like unto His brethren. Had God the Word any brothers like unto His Godhead? Mark what is straightway joined on to these, That He might be made a merciful and faithful High Priest in things to God-ward, for in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Therefore He Who suffered is a merciful High Priest: passible is the Temple, not the quickening God of him that has suffered: the seed of Abraham is he which is yesterday and to-day, as Paul saith, not He That saith, Before Abraham was I am. Like to his brethren in all things is he which assumed brother-hood of human soul and flesh and not He which saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father."