28. Nestorius is here accused of Nestorianism, His reply is a somewhat ambiguous reference to Scripture, after which he confines himself to attacking Sophronius' position, leaving till later the task of making clear his own views. Cp. p. 47, n. 3.
29. See p. 15, n. 2. Nestorius is here developing further the argument on p. 15. He has there denied that the Incarnation means merely the taking of the schema of humanity by God the Word; he now shows that it involves the taking of that schema and more. But the most important point seems to be the establishing of the fact that ousias are mutually exclusive. Henceforward this must be assumed as one of the presuppositions of Nestorius' thought. If Godhead and manhood are to be united neither of them can be the basis of the union. They must be united in some tertium quid. Cp. pp. 14, n. 2, 48, 298.
30. Nau points out that the emphasis is on the otherness, not on the equality, of the added ousia. The Syriac phrase is equivalent to the Greek ισουσία .
31. Nau suggests, probably rightly, that the human prosôpon is here meant.
32. This heading refers to the sect mentioned at the beginning of p. 24, and should probably be transposed to the top of that page.
33. Nestorius seems here to be dealing with the position afterwards held by Eutyches.
34. Altering the punctuation of the Syriac text, which puts the stop after 'Manichaeans'.
35. V reads: 'that which is made from that which is unmade '.
36. Viz. the human ousia.
37. Viz. St. Peter.
38. Viz. the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
39. §§ 37-41. Nestorius' argument seems to be: In whatever sense the bread becomes the Body of Christ, in that same sense we become the Body of Christ by participating in the Sacrament. Since we can only participate in a human body, the Body of Christ must have been (and be) human.
In view of the charge commonly brought against Nestorianism that it destroys the universal significance for all men of the Incarnation of Christ, it is interesting to find that he defends his own view as alone safeguarding this significance.
40. The Syriac text reads 'revelation ', for which Nau suggests 'will'; but in view of later passages this seems unnecessary. Cp. e.g. pp. 60-69, 200 n. 1.
41. Sc. God the Word and the Man Christ.
42. If the text of this passage is right, the last words 'from no nature' must be the apodosis to the conditional clause beginning ' But if, since he wished....' The sense must be that out of something which, being incomplete, is no real nature the human nature was made by the addition of the Logos.
43. The word 'soul' seems to have dropped out of the Syriac text.
44. This seems to mean: If the divine nature is found in Christ in a natural union, it can only be so in virtue of having been reduced to the level of human nature. If it were remaining itself and freely co-operating of its own will, the union would be another kind of union.
45. Viz. the Son.
46. Viz. the Father.
47. Literally: 'for you the word "union" necessarily takes the meaning of the Arians.'
48. See p. 19, n. 2. Sophronius again accuses Nestorius of Nestorianism, and this time he defends himself against the charges by directly denying what is alleged against him. See especially pp. 49-50.
49. Sophronius here seems to identify himself with Nestorius' point of view, but to deduce from it that he must go on to conclude that God was in Christ in the same way as in the saints. He is thus used to represent an accusation commonly brought against Nestorius by the orthodox, which Nestorius proceeds to rebut.
50. This presumably means that each nature has its own hypostasis and prosôpon, (So Nau.)
51. In this section Nestorius shows clearly that he is aware that in using words like 'adoption' and 'indwelling' he is in danger of being taken to teach psilanthropism, from which he is careful to distinguish his own doctrine.