Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp. 381-398. Appendices.
Appendix 2: Critical notes (omitted) pp.398-402.
Appendix 3: The word πρόσωπον (omitted) pp.402-410.
Appendix 4: The metaphysic of Nestorius (omitted) pp. 411-420.
Index (omitted) pp.421-425
APPENDICES
The translation of the fragments is made from the text given on pp. 365-88 of F. Loofs, Nestoriana: Die Fragmente des Nestorius (Halle, 1905).
XI c. Fragm. 258. From the letter to Alexander of Hierapolis. But the property which [exists] in the nature of the divinity and [that which exists in that] of the humanity is indeed distinct from everlasting. For this reason Paul, the teacher of the churches, not in placing 'God' first and then adding 'in flesh', but in saying either 'Son' or 'Christ' first, makes 'in flesh' follow at the end: 'Concerning the Son who was of the seed of David in flesh' and again: 'Of whom [was] Christ in flesh,' nowhere at all saying God first, making 'in flesh' follow, but Christ or Son.
XII. Fragm. 276. From the letter to Theodoret, wherein he blames what was written by Cyril to the Easterns. For what does he say? Although the diversity of the natures, from which the ineffable union was brought about, is ignored, this [phrase] 'from which' again [is] as if he were speaking in respect to the Lord's natures of parts of one another which became one. For he ought to have said not 'from these' but 'of those [it is] that we say that an ineffable union was brought about'. For the ineffable union is not of the natures but the things of the natures.
Fragm. 290 is identical with Fragm. 276, except for slight differences in orthography.
Fragm. 310. From what he wrote unto Theodoret from exile, speaking thus about Cyril. For what does he say? Although the diversity of the natures is known, from which |383 we say that an ineffable union was brought about: Behold! again 'from which' as if he were speaking concerning our Lord's .... which became one. For he ought to have said not 'from them' but 'of those' .... for not of the natures. . .
Fragm. 226. For he wrote from exile unto Theodoret, blaming what had been written by the Holy Cyril unto the bishops of the East. And thus Nestorius concludes: For what does he say: Although the diversity of the natures is known, of which we say that an ineffable union was brought about. . . .
Fragm. 243. But then Nestorius, rebuking from exile the patriarch Cyril, wrote unto Theodoret: Here with a view to dissembling [the truth] he confounds the properties of the natures.
Fragm. 253. After the deposition of Theodoret took place, Nestorius wrote thus to him. Surely I have borne what thou hast become; I have not left [it] alone. For not when I was far removed from the assembly of the impious did I then show myself an enemy to the throne of the fear of God. For not even Paul, when he was stoning Stephen with the stoning Jews, was then an Apostle but when he removed himself afar from stoning. When thou too seest proof herein, although thou wast brought up in godly learning, exult, I counsel [thee] and deck thyself out in this time which now is, being head and all with them that are victorious on behalf of religion and, exulting, say these [words] of David: 'Mine is Gilead and mine is Manasseh, and Ephraim is the support of my head.' But lay hold of the departure from Egypt and believe, since thou nearest, in God who now calls unto thy Piety with a loud voice: 'What hast thou to do in the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of Gihon?' For the people [that is] striving with God is from the beginning and is warring with the holy fathers. |384
II c. Fragm. 208. Records which were forged by him in Ephesus, concerning which he wrote thus: About what took place at the Council at Ephesus and the cause which brought about its assembling Nestorius says these things: This was not supposed by any one of the [followers] of Apollinarius or of Arius just as also these [believe: namely] the [fact] that they mingle the quality of the natures in one nature.
Fragm. 305. In these records which were forged by him at Ephesus he wrote thus; This was not supposed; and not by any .... they mingle.
III. Fragm. 225. For in the book which is inscribed 'Unto the Theopaschitans or Cyrillians' he wrote in the form of question and answer things which have been taken up by us in what was investigated before, Nestorius [ says ]: The Theopaschitan says: Now as we are rebuked [on account of] the dual composition of the natures, we who predicate one nature of Christ which is [that] of God made flesh----in regard to the reprimand [uttered] against thee thou hopest not for any defence against the reprimand which is uttered; for thou hast confessed that you obtained for Christ one nature out of what is without bodily form and [what is without] body and a one-natured hypostasis of the becoming flesh of the divinity. But such is the mingling of the two natures, that those natures are deprived of the hypostases which they solely possess, being mingled with one another; and yet above, as the foolish theory which he has forged necessitates, he introduces the Theopaschitan who says these things: 'For the nature of the flesh is passible and changeable newly created; yet [it is] thus on the contrary the godhead's very own, as both of them subsist in one and the same nature.
Fragm. 307. And in the homily [ called ] 'the Dialogue' against the Cyrillians, as he required, he introduced the |385 Theopaschitan who says thus: For I have confessed .... mingled with one another. And again before this, as was pleasing unto him, he brought in the Theopaschitan who says thus; For the nature of the flesh is passible. . . .
Fragm. 304. Likewise, and in the work which [ was addressed ] to the Theopaschitans, namely the Cyrillians, he wrote thus: If our dividing of these properties of the flesh or the Son and of his divinity is named a kind of addition of quaternity on our side, what prohibits also the incarnation itself of the Son from being passed over in silence as far as concerns you, because the Trinity accepts not the ousia which makes the manas any addition. For without the ousia which was made manno one understands that which has made the man. And again: To confuse the properties of the nature of that which was made and of that which made the man is very impious.
Fragm. 239. Unto the Theopaschitans or Cyrillians in the form of question and answer Nestorius [ wrote ] thus: There is indeed one Son, equal in ousia to the Father, just as thou hast well said before; but the natures of the Son, in accordance with the identity of ousia of the Father and of ours, are divided by the distinction in the mind.
Fragm. 220 is identical with Fragm. 239, except that the introduction is only: ' Nestorius [ wrote thus ]'
Fragm. 309. The homily [called] 'the Dialogue' against the Cyrillians: he wrote thus: By ' Christ' or 'Only-begotten' or 'Jesus' or 'Son' or by other [terms] such as these we preach the term of the union, but by 'man' the ousia which was assumed and by 'God the Word' the property of the hypostasis which was made man.
VI. Fragm. 205 a. Again, from his distinct Chapters against those who say that Christ is God alone: They say that Christ is God alone, and behold! God is the Trinity; therefore Christ is the Trinity. But, if Christ is God alone, while the Father |386 is not Christ, we thus distinguish them in the nature. [So much the more is it] that Christ is the name not of the essence but of the dispensation. And Christ is God, but God is not Christ.
Fragm. 205b. Again, his [ Chapters ]: Unto him who asks who it was that walked upon the water we answer that it was the feet that were walking and the concrete bodily frame through the strength that dwelled therein. This [it is] that is a [cause of] wonder. For if God were walking upon the water, that is not astonishing, as also [it is] not in the air. And the [fact] again that the concrete body came in through closed doors----this too is [matter] for astonishment. But, if the divine nature came in, it is nothing that I should desist from what belongs to the infinite.
Fragm. 205 c. Again, his [ Chapters ]: They ask, [saying] that it is written: 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' What is this? Does he speak the truth or does he lie? If he is left alone, where then is the infinity of God? If he is not left alone, he has therefore lied. What then do we say----that he neglected to let it suffer for its sake, in order that he might leave him to adhere to us that the dispensation might be fulfilled?