/ 'From the Book of Nestorius, from the sixteenth chapter, concerning the Faith.' From which book of mine? From which sixteenth chapter? What is it that you sought out, when there was none to argue against you? But this concerns me not much, whether it be clear or whether it be in need of investigation. I desire, however, to persuade you all concerning the things whereby he has deceived many and drawn them away from the Faith, as if indeed there had been an examination touching the Records [of the Council], concerning things whereof they have accused me by anticipation without examination, which they have accepted [as] mine and his without examination. . . .
When Divine Scripture is about to tell of the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary or [his] death, in no place does it appear that it puts 'God' but either 'Christ' or 'Son' or 'Lord', because these three are indicative of the two natures, now of this and now of that, now of the one and now of the other. For example, when the Book relates unto us the birth from the Virgin, whom docs it say? God sent his Son. It says not that God sent God the Word, but it takes a name which indicates both the natures. Since the Son is man and God, it says that God sent his Son and he was born of a woman; and therein thou seest that the name is put which indicates both the natures. Thou callest [him] Son according to the birth from the blessed Virgin, for the Virgin Mother / of Christ bare the Son of God. But since the Son of God is twofold in natures, she bare not the Son of God but she bare the humanity, which is the Son because of the Son who is united thereto. |189
I demand then of you to reflect accurately on these things; for I pass by the things which they have omitted, and they have clearly not preserved the coherence [of the argument]. And he accuses me of these things as if I were dividing Christ and making [him into] sundry parts, the divinity by itself and the humanity by itself, while making use of [the words] 'honour' and 'the equality of one' in such wise that they tend to bring together in love and not in the ousias things far apart. Thus he accuses me both as touching the divinity and as touching the humanity, [of saying] that God the Word is flesh and man but [that] the humanity is Son, Lord, and God, which has taken place through love and through coherence. This is his principal calumny, so that you, since you are judges concerning this, ought at all times to take heed that, if you find that I have imagined thus----condemn me and I too will condemn myself. And also I will beseech you to accept on tradition my condemnation, which is just, although I should have combated ten thousand times and cite convincing arguments to establish that I make use not of ousia but simply of love, / and that thereby he is called Lord and Christ and Son. But if I have said the contrary, let them prove that the union is [made] from nature and [that] the union belongs to nature. But, so far from a union in nature, I predicate one prosôpon, one equality, one honour, one authority, one lordship; and, in short, [I insert] these things also in virtue of the union of one prosôpon in all those things wherein the prosôpon of the one and of the other exists in nature; for the prosôpon of the natures is not one nature, but it is in nature and is not nature. For the Son of God the Father is by nature consubstantial with the Father and that which the Father is in his nature the Son also is; for that which the prosôpon is in nature, the Son, |190 the Father also is not; for the Son, who is in nature, is not the Father nor is the Father the Son, who is in the nature of the Father and is the Son by nature; for in prosôpon he is something else. But they are not one thing and another but one only in ousia and in nature, without division, without separation, without distinction in all the things which appertain by nature unto the prosôpon ; but he is other by the prosôpon. But certainly as regards the unity of the divinity and of the humanity it was not so. In whatsoever the prosôpon is by its nature, in those very things it exists by union as in one prosôpon even in another ousia. For he has taken him for the prosôpon and not for the ousia nor / for the nature in such wise as to become consubstantial with the Father or another son without there being one and the same Son. For the prosôpon of the divinity is the humanity and the prosôpon of the humanity the divinity; for it is the one in nature and the other in the union. Investigate therefore and see what it is that he has written: 'Whoever predicates two natures in the Son and who predicates each, one of them by itself as in the remoteness of the distinction of God by himself and man by itself.' For if I had said merely God and man and not 'two natures, one Christ', you would have had an opportunity to calumniate me for calling a man God and him man. Because of my having predicated two natures, man and God, I have not predicated two natures of man, though he is called God on account of the union, nor yet two natures of God, although he is called also flesh in the union. Thou hadst not [any ground] for the calumny, not even one, because I said that one Son and Christ indicate two natures; I said, however, that the Son is God and man. In the first place I said that the name of Christ and Son indicates two natures, and I came at the same time to speak also of 'the natures '; but since the Son is God and man, he is not predicated / solely but he is two natures. But thou art enraged against me because I have not called God the Word two natures by change of ousia; for it is not to be imagined otherwise than that I said that he came to be in the nature of the humanity and the Son was man in the union |191 and not in nature. Has this that I said alarmed you, or that which he also has said, that the flesh, when it was born, was said to have been born? Because one considers the birth of his flesh clearly his; he too has thus said that the flesh was born but [that] he made it his own. What then have I said at all new, [in asserting] that it is said that, when it was born, there was born of the Virgin Mary a man, the Son of God, since this humanity was the Son of God by union with the Son and not by nature? For by the union God the Word made these [properties] of the flesh his own, not that the divinity was born in the birth of the flesh, nor again that the flesh was born naturally in the birth of the divinity, but [that] by the union with the flesh God is called flesh and the flesh by union with the Son, God the Word, is called Son; otherwise he has not been united, and we calumniate him [by denying his union]. Who has deceived you? For this is the agreement of men deceived. For there is this agreement concerning the two natures, that in fact [the word] 'Son' is indicative of two natures, indicating Christ and also Lord. 'The natures which have been combined in a true union are diverse, but the Son is one with them both,' the natures remaining without / confusion in the union: 'The diversities of the natures are not made void on account of the union.' And again, it is by union that the flesh is son and not by nature . . . , for 'that wherewith he sits with the Father is not alien unto him'.
Ambrose also has said:
When the Son of God speaks by them both, because there are two natures in him, he speaks, but he speaks not continually in one manner. Reflect on him, now in glory and now in the sufferings of man, since as God he teaches the things of God, because he is the Word, but as man he teaches the things of man, since he speaks in our own ousia. He is the living bread which came down from Heaven; this bread is the Body, as he has said: This bread which I give unto yon is my body . He it is who came down, he it is |192 whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world. Does not the Scripture also teach you that not the divinity but the flesh has need of sanctification?
How have you cited these things and anathematized mine? For I have not said anything else. . . .
But Athanasius leaves thee not alone, saying:
These things did not take place artificially, far from it! as some have supposed, but in reality, truly, our Saviour became man [and] the salvation of all men came about. For if he had been artificially in the body, as they say-----but that which is said [to be] artificially is a fantasy----the salvation and the resurrection of men would have been found by him to have been fictitious as the impious Manes said; but our salvation exists not in fantasy [and our salvation takes place truly not for the body alone but for the whole man, for the soul and for the body]. Human therefore is that which [issued] from Mary, according to the Divine Scriptures and truly it belongs to our Saviour. . .
Let none admit the saying that God the Word is in the body artificially but [that he is] God as [being] God the Word, who existed of old and exists eternally, and came to be in the bodily frame and exists also in the bodily frame, without having come forth out of his own ousia into the ousia of the |193 flesh, or having endured the birth of the flesh but from our ousia. . . .
For human is the nature which [issued] from Mary, as the Divine Scriptures say, and truly it belonged to our Saviour. For [as regards] the ousia of God the Word and as regards the ousia of man I dissociate myself from you, and not as regards the name; for I have said 'I object not to the appella-tion of the Virgin, the Mother of Christ, but I know that she is to be honoured who received God, from whom the Lord of all came forth'.
These things thou acceptest not; and how shall one leave thee alone / and believe thee, as one who sayest in this manner that God was born? 'Human therefore is he who [was born] of the blessed Mary,' although a thousand times thou wouldest dispute against Athanasius. God the Word existed in the body, in that which took the beginning of its coming into being from the blessed Mary; [yet] he took not the beginning of his coming into being. In the beginning was the Word, and God the Word exists eternally.
Confess that the natures exist, confess as thou hast been bidden, confess that God wished to rescue thee by means of the body and that the body was not changed from the ousia of God into the ousia of the flesh; it was formed and fashioned and grew and was perfected in the nature of men and was born, but from the bodily frame of our own form, of the seed of men; for it was of the seed of Abraham. Why dost thou treat these things of the body as hallucinations and makest void the things of the bodily frame and assignest them to God, in such wise as to bring the two generations into doubt, in that thou makest even the generation of the bodily frame without beginning, from God the Father? For thou sayest that God the Father is body and man, both subject unto beginning and subject unto completion and that he was |194 born of the Blessed Virgin, because he became man. How sayest thou 'the birth of the body'? For to God the Word alone thou dost attribute a generation from God the Father and from the Virgin. Speak clearly and confess the human nature, / [born] of the Blessed Mary, as the Divine Scriptures say. And that whereof inquiry was made is solved, that the ousia of God is not subject unto beginning and growth and completion, although it is so said through the revelation which [was made] little by little. Wherefore makest thou void the names indicative of the humanity, but wouldest at the same time make us believe in the divinity, as if it were not unbelief [to say] the divinity came forth from her, just as thou makest void that which indicates that it derived not [its] beginning from her? And thou makest void the humanity which was born of the blessed Mary, for thou sayest that she bare not the man; since, as demons that deceive, showing that man is not man, thou confessest the man but [it is] God the Word and [then] thou confessest God the Word but [it is] the man. For thou deceivest men, changing the ousias from the names, for thou sayest 'man' and assertest the ousia of God the Word; and again thou sayest 'God the Word', and assertest the ousia of man, and then thou exaltest it with the name of God the Word. They have nought to say. 'It is the human nature which is from the Blessed Mary'; she is then the mother of the man who derived beginning from her and gradually advanced and was perfected. 'He is not by nature God, although he is so called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by little. . . .' She is therefore on the one hand by nature the mother of the man, by revelation on the other hand she is the mother of God, if by revelation / and not by nature thou sayest that he was born of her; he then came forth united to him who was born of her in flesh. Wherefore dost thou in part assert and then make void these things, like miracle-mongers, who make visible things invisible and in semblance make things which are visible invisible? |195 Christianity exists in truth: deceive not .... 'He is human who was born of the Blessed Mary ....' 'He who took his beginning and gradually advanced and was perfected, is not by nature God, although he is so called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by little . . . .
Do you believe that they who say these things are [to be regarded] as truthful? Do you believe that which you have written----for you have written these things----or do you not believe them? Or do they say that Christ was a mere man, because they say these things concerning him? They say that God was not in the body artificially, saying of God that he began and gradually advanced. For how is [either of] those which are united [to be] called mere? But thou considerest mere those which exist not both in ousia: the divinity which is not the humanity and the humanity which is not the divinity; but these things are foolish, as I suppose, in the mouth of one who has said that the difference of the natures is not made void by the union. Thou sayest therefore that very thing which I also [say], commending [it]: that the divinity exists united to the humanity and the humanity exists in nature and united / to the divinity. And dost thou anathematize those things which [are found] in my [works]? Anathematize those which are thine, if it is right to call thine things of which thou art not confident that they are true, seeing that thou remainest in opposition to the Fathers and to the Divine Scriptures. For admirable and commendable is this discovery of heresy, wherein thou sayest [of] all these things that none confess them; thou alone hast set up thine own dogma in opposition to all men and thou dost suppose that they are held by all men. But, on the contrary, as one who has led all men through partiality, as partial thou art hated of all men.
In order that the truth which is preached by all men may be revealed, which surely indeed thou knowest, but which thou darest not say, it suffices therefore for those who seek to know thy mind to learn also of those things for which |196 thou blamest me, as though I were saying that the ousias are divided by remoteness in space, but participate together in equality by conjunction and by love and not by that whereby they naturally exist, [and as though] therefore we make a distinction in the doctrine of the natures, for the divinity is one thing and the humanity another. But by the conjunction of these things there is not one and another in the prosôpon.
Thus thou hast made men conceive of me, but it seems that I say the contrary of that which thou dost testify against me; for I indeed unite the ousias, but by the union / of the ousias I assert one prosôpon in one equality in everything whatsoever that appertains to the prosôpon, to which also both one ousia and another belongs, by separation and by being kept remote, but in the same [ prosôpon ] . Let us however also pass on as quickly as possible to other things, lest any one [there be for] whom in these things or by means of them there is blasphemy, and these also should be refuted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
That therefore which we were saying: ' Fear not to take Mary [ as ] thy wife, for he who is born in her is of the Holy Spirits For if thou sayest "was born in her" or "came into being in her", that does no violence at all to the sense; for he who is born in her is of the Holy Spirit. Yet if we say that God the Word was born in the womb, it is indeed one thing [to say] "he was with him who was born" and another "he will be born ". For "he who is born in her is of the Holy Spirit", that is, the Holy Spirit has created that which was in her. The Fathers therefore, in that they were acquainted with the Divine Scriptures, have seen that if "he who was born" is added to "he who was found in bodily frame", God the Word is found either [to be] the son of the Spirit or to have two Fathers. But if we say "He came into being", God the Word / is found to be the creature of the Holy Spirit. And, shunning the word "birth", they have laid down He came down for us men and for our salvation and was |197 found in bodily frame". What means "He was found in bodily frame"? [Does it not mean] that he was not changed from the divinity into the flesh? For in "He was found in bodily frame by the Holy Spirit" they concurred with the Evangelist. For the Evangelist also, when he came to the Incarnation, shunned predicating the birth of the Word and laid down the being found in a bodily frame. How? Hear.
And the Word became flesh. He said not that the Word was born through the flesh. For wherever indeed the Apostles and the Evangelists make mention of the birth they lay down that the Son was born of a woman .... Look well unto what has been written, I pray thee; where they employ the term "Son" and [the phrase] He was born of a woman, they lay down that he was born, but where they make mention of the Word, none indeed of them dares to say "the birth through the humanity ". Hear the blessed John the Evangelist, when he came to the account of his Incarnation, hear what he has said: The Word became flesh, that is, took the flesh, and sojourned among us, that is, put on our nature while living among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory of the Son ; he said not "we have seen the birth of the Word ".' |198
So then I have stated the reason which I should have supposed satisfactory, / on account of which the Fathers said in their laying down of the Faith not that he was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, but that he was made flesh, in order that they might not say that the Holy Spirit was Father or that which was created [was] Son, but rather that he was made flesh by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, in order that they might attach 'became' to the flesh, because he was made flesh. But as regards the history of [his] being made, what do you say? Speak openly. Reprimand those who have clearly blasphemed, [asserting that] 'He was born of the Holy Spirit'. If he was born, the Holy Spirit was the Father of the Son or the creator of God the Word; yet these, I have said, [are things] which neither the Fathers have said nor do I say. Have I blasphemed in saying these things? Or have I surely calumniated the Fathers? If it is [possible] for you to show that the Fathers have said these things, speak openly. Which of these things? Is God the Word a creature or the son of the Holy Spirit? And if he is not a creature, flesh which is fleshly, then is he no more a creature of the Holy Spirit; speak openly. 'He was made flesh' means that he was in every sense made flesh in his nature, and it was not another who was made flesh; he is said to have been made flesh. But he was made flesh in his own ousia, in the flesh which came into being and was born of the Holy Spirit. For 'he was born', as thou sayest, is contrary to what thou hast said; since, when he was born, the flesh is said to have been born, as though he made it the birth of his own flesh, whereas he was not / made flesh in his [own] self but in its own ousia. Therefore 'he was made flesh' and 'he was born' do not signify the same thing, and for this reason they have laid down 'he was made flesh' and not 'he was born'. [This is clear], since they have taken the word 'became' for the flesh; and for this reason also the Evangelist said that he became flesh and said not that he was born, so that by 'became' he limited not God the Word. But, as touching the flesh which came into being, it became his flesh. And |199 God the Word sojourned among us; God the Word 'became' not, for he existed.
And hear them; for you would not disclaim these men whom you have brought in accusation against me. Speak then, O Ambrose, disregard not him who is oppressed; be not at the beck and call of the calumniators, and condemn not innocent blood before it has been heard. I say that the flesh came into being of the Virgin Mary [and] appertained not unto God the Word; for I confess him neither made nor come to be nor created. Yet all these rise up against me like swords, nor even are they willing to hear my speech entirely, and in regard to these things they cite thee among the witnesses. Of death I was not afraid, [I] who have been thus calumniated, but of having been condemned as impious in thy prosôpon, thine! I have spoken in accordance with Ambrose and I deny not aught that I have said, although they have drawn the sword against me. / This have I said: 'In consequence of these things he was ready to come into being of a woman, according to the [word] "became"'. Thou limitest not the divinity, but the body which was |200 assumed: namely, he who descended is the same whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world. Does not also the Scripture teach you that the divinity was not in need of sanctification but the flesh? If then they have deceived, they have deceived themselves and not me.
And thou also, O Gregory the divine, what then [sayest thou]? What opinion hast thou concerning these things? I ask, not that I know not, but because in thine own name they desire to crush the truth. What knowest thou of him who was by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, who began and gradually advanced and was fulfilled? I say not in the prosôpon, but in the ousia. What else at all wouldest thou concede except something which thou hast conceded unto them in written works? [To wit], that the man who was taken . . . . 'He indeed who begins and grows and is perfected is not God, although he is so called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by little.' 'For one and another were those of which our Saviour was, if the invisible and the visible are not the same, God on the one hand who was man and man on the other who was made God.'
But speak thou also, O wise Athanasius; for thou also hast been calumniated with many calumnies such as these and hast endured [much] at the hands of the Arians, on behalf of / the tradition of the Son, God the Word. What opinion hast thou concerning [the statement] that 'he was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary'? In the nature and not in the prosôpon which [results] from the union 'we say that one and the same Son and none other was born of Holy Mary'. But [we call] this one and him only, who was born a son, Christ, God the Word together with his flesh, and the same one flesh with God the Word. But 'in ousia God the Word is of God the Father, and the flesh is the flesh |201 which he put on from the Virgin 'that it might come to be. We say not one and another, for there is one prosôpon of both natures. But he who by nature came into being by the Holy Spirit, what was he? And what was his nature? And of what nature was the Virgin, his mother? For inquiry is made of this. Hear them all.....I have said he is man who was of Mary, according to the Divine Scriptures, and that he was truly our Saviour. 'For if artificially the Word was in the body, as they say, he then who is said [to be] artificially is a phantasy. The salvation and the resurrection of men will be found to have been fictitious, as the impious Manes has said; but our salvation is not in phantasy nor in the body alone but in the whole man: to the soul and to the body truly salvation belongs. Human therefore was he who was of Mary, as the Divine Scriptures say, and he truly it was who .... [was] our Saviour . . . .'
/ .... So indeed we name Christ as concerning the flesh, owing to the conjunction with God the Word, recognizing him since he is visible as man.
'Hear Paul, who says in two [passages]: Of the Jews is Christ as concerning the flesh, he who is God over all:' He confesses the man in the first place and then, owing to his conjunction with God the Word, he calls him who is visible God, that none may suppose that Christianity is the worship of a man.'
That none may accuse me anywhere, take heed and look well, in what sense I say 'a mere man who is far removed from divinity'. I say 'Christ who [is] in flesh', as also I predicate the same in the divinity. For I have not said 'a fleshly Christ', but 'Christ who [is] in flesh', I speak of the flesh of Christ by reason of the conjunction with God the |202 Word, as being indeed united to and not distinguished from God the Word. Nor indeed with equality was it united but to God the Word himself. And of him who was visible in ousia, I said that he was of the Jews and not God the Word, since I confess that the man in respect of ousia and of nature is of the Jews and not God the Word in respect of nature. And I said 'man in nature apart from the nature of God the Word' / but 'he is God by virtue of that union which came about in the prosôpon'. Art thou angered with me on account of this?
But hear what Athanasius proclaims unto thee: 'Human then is he who [was born] of Mary, according to the Divine Scriptures; neither in semblance nor in phantasy is he our salvation and the resurrection of men, as the impious Manes said; nor only of body but of the whole man, of soul and of body, became he truly our salvation.' Human therefore was he who [was born] of Mary, according to the Holy Scriptures and truly was it he who was our Saviour.....