During the Session of 22 June of the Council of Ephesus, excerpts from the Book of Nestorius were read. The following excerpts are taken from
Richard Price, The Council of Ephesus 431: Documents and
Proceedings (Translated Texts for Historians 72; Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press, 2020, 2022)
Quaternion 1
For the operations of the Trinity
are shared, and are distinguished only in the hypostases. Indeed the glory of
the Only-begotten was sometimes assigned to the Father (for it says, ‘It is my
Father who glorifies me’), sometimes to the Spirit (for it says, ‘The Spirit of
truth will glorify me’) and sometimes to the sovereignty of Christ. (Ibid.,
273)
Quaternion 4
So listen attentively to what is
said. ‘He who eats my flesh,’ he says—remember that the statement is about the
flesh and that it is not I who attend the word ‘flesh’, lest they think I am
interpreting wrongly. ‘He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood’. Did he say, ‘He
who eats my Godhead and drinks my Godhead’? ‘He who eats my flesh and drinks my
blood abides in me and I in him.’
And further down:
But to return to the subject, ‘He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides
in me and I in him.’ Remember that the statement is about the flesh. ‘As the
living Father sent me’—‘me’ being the one who appeared. But [they say that] I
sometimes misinterpret; let us hear the sequel, ‘As the living Father sent me.’
My opponents say this is the Godhead, I say the manhood; let us see who is
misinterpreting. ‘As the living Father sent me’ The heretic says, ‘here it says
the Godhead—he sent me (it says), God the Word.’ ‘As the living Father sent me,
and I live’—according to them this is God the Word—‘because of the Father.’
There then follows, ‘And he who eats me, even he will live.’ Whom do we eat,
the Godhead or the flesh? (Ibid., 276)
Quaternion 6
Speaking of Christ:
‘he was sent to preach release to captives’, to which the apostle adds, ‘This
is he who was made a high priest faithful to God.’ (for he came into being
and did not pre-exist eternally); this is he, you heretic, who advanced
little by little to the dignity of high priest. Hear a statement that
proclaimed this to you even more clearly: ‘In the days of his flesh,’ it says, ‘he
offered up petitions and supplications to him who was able to save him from
death, with powerful cries and tears, and was heard because of his devotion.’ Although he was a son, he learned obedience
from what he suffered; and being made perfect, he became for all who obey him
the cause of eternal salvation.’ It is that which progresses little by little that
is perfected, you heretic. On this topic John proclaims in the gospels, ‘Jesus
advanced in age and wisdom and grace.’ Speaking in agreement with this, Paul
too says, ‘Being made perfect, he became for all who obey him the cause of
eternal salvation, being addressed by God as high priest according to the order
of Melchizedek’
And further down:
And he was called high priest. So why do you misinterpret Paul, mixing the impassible
God the Word with the earthly likeness and making him a passible high priest? (Ibid.,
275)
Quaternion 15
And so we also give the name ‘God’
to Christ according to the flesh because of his conjunction with God the Word,
while knowing the appearance to be man. Listen to Paul preaching both: ‘From
the Jews,’ he says, ‘is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all.’ He
first acknowledges the man and only then applies divine language to the
appearance in virtue of its conjunction with God, lest anyone should suspect
Christianity of worshipping a man. (Ibid., 270-71)
‘Have this mind among you
yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God,
emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.’ It did not say, ‘Have this mind
among yourselves which was also in God the Word, who’ being in the form of God,
took the form of a servant,’ but taking ‘Christ’ as the name that indicates the
two natures, it calls him without danger both ‘the form of a servant’, which he
took, and ‘God’, the expressions being assigned severally beyond our comprehension
to the duality of the natures. (Ibid., 271-72)
Quaternion 16
‘So that at the name of Jesus,’ it
says, ‘every knee should bend of those above the heavens, on the earth and
under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.’ I
venerate the one born for the sake of the bearer; I worship the one who appears
for the sake of the one who is hidden. The Godhead is inseparable from the one
who appears, therefore I do not separate the honour of the one who is not
separated. I separate the natures, but I unite the worship. (Ibid. 272)
Speaking about the Son:
This is he who says, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ This is he who
underwent a three-day death. I worship him together with the Godhead, as
sharing in the exercise of divine authority.
And further down:
I venerate the one borne for the sake of the bearer; I worship the one who
appears for the sake of the one who is hidden. God is inseparable from the one
who appears; therefore I do not separate the honour of the one who is not
separated. I separate the natures, but I unite the worship. That which was
formed in the womb is not in itself God; that which was created by the Spirit
is not in itself God; that which was buried in the tomb is not in itself God;
for if it were, we would unmistakably he worshippers of man and worshippers of
the dead. But since God is the one assumed, so the one assumed, as conjoined to
the one who assumed, it also reckoned as God, because of the one who assumed.
(Ibid., 274)
Quaternion 17
When the divine scripture is going
to speak about either the birth of Christ from the blessed Virgin or his death
it is nowhere found to use the word ‘God’ but either ‘Christ’ or ‘Son’ or ‘Lord’,
because these three words indicate the two natures, sometimes this one,
sometimes that one, and sometimes both this and that. To give an example, when
scripture relates the virgin birth to us, what does it say? ‘God sent his Son.’
It does not say, ‘God sent God the Word,’ but uses the name which expresses the
two natures. For since the Son is man and God, it says, ‘he sent his Son, born
of woman,’ so that, when you hear ‘born of woman’ and then note the preceding
name which indicates the two natures, you ascribe the birth from the blessed
Virgin to the ‘Son’. For the Virgin Christotokos indeed gave birth to the Son
of God—but since the Son of God is dual in respect of the natures, she did not
give birth to the Son of God but gave birth to the manhood, which is ‘the Son’
because of the Son who is conjoined. (Ibid., 268)
For even before the incarnation
God the Word was Son and God and existed with the Father, but he took in the
last times the form of the servant. But since he was, and was called, Son even
before this, he cannot after the assumption [of human nature] be called a
separate son, lest we teach two sons; but since he was conjoined to the one who
was Son in the beginning and is conjoined to him, it is impossible to accept
distinction as regards to the dignity of sonship—I say as regards the dignity
of sonship, not as regards the natures. This is why God the Word is also called
Christ, since he enjoys uninterrupted conjunction with Christ. (Ibid., 272)
Quaternion 21
Now divine scripture nowhere says
that God was born from the Virgin Christotokos, but that Jesus Christ Son and
Lord was. This we all acknowledge, for wretched is he who does not at once
accept what divine scripture has taught. ‘Rise, take the child and his mother’.
This is an utterance of the angels; the archangels doubtless understood the
character of the birth better than you do. ‘Rise, take the child and his
mother.’ It did not say, ‘Rise, take God and his mother.’ (Ibid., 269)
Quaternion 24
As for our statement, ‘Do not fear
to take Mary your wife, for that which was generated in her . . . ‘, the
meaning is not distorted by using either one ‘n’ or two (for what was
engendered in her is from the Holy Spirit), but it would be if we were to say
that od the Word was generated in the womb. For there is a difference between ‘being
with the one being generated’ and ‘being generated’. ‘For that which has been generated
in her,’ it says, ‘is from the Holy Spirit,’ that is, the Holy Spirit created
that which was in her. Therefore, the fathers, having a good knowledge of the
divine scriptures, saw that if in place of ‘was enfleshed’ we were to put ‘was
generated’, God the Word would turn out either to be the son of the Spirit or
to have two fathers, or with one ‘n’, God the Word would turn out to be the
creation of the Spirit. Therefore they avoided the term ‘generation’, and put ‘who
for us men and for our salvation came down and was enfleshed’. What it meant by
‘was enfleshed’? They did not say that he was changed from Godhead into flesh;
in saying ‘was enfleshed from the Holy Spirit’ they followed the evangelist.
For the evangelist, when he came to the incarnation, avoided speaking of ‘generation’
in relation to the Word and put ‘enfleshement’. How? Listen: ‘The Word was made
flesh.’ He did not say, ‘The Word was generated through the flesh.’ For wherever
the apostles or the evangelists mention the Son, they put that he was generated
from woman. I ask you to attend to what is being said. Wherever they say the
name of the Son, and that he was generated from woman, they put that he was
generated; but wherever they mentioned the Word, none of them dared to speak of generation
through the incarnation. Listen: when the blessed evangelist John came to the
Word and his incarnation, hear what he says, ‘The word became flesh,’ that is,
he took flesh, ‘and tabernacled among us,’ that is, he put on our nature and dwelt
among us, ‘and we beheld his glory,’ that of the Son. He did not say, ‘We
beheld the generation of the word.’ (Ibid., 269-70)
In a footnote to the portion in bold above, Price notes that
The Latin version helpfully adds
the explanatory gloss: ‘The Greek [for ‘was generated’] is gennethein .
. . if In Greek you use two n’s it means born, but if you use one
it means made.’ The two words (and some of their cognates) were
indistinguishable in pronunciation and often in meaning, and were constantly
confused in manuscripts. The potential differentiation in meaning became
crucial in the context of the Trinity, where the Nicene Creed insists that the
divine Son is ‘begotten not made’. (Ibid., 269 n. 112)
Quaternion 27
But just as we said that God is
the creator of all things and that Moses is God (for scripture says, ‘I made
you God over Pharaoh’), and that Israel is the son of God (for it says, ‘my
first-born son Israel), and just as we said that Saul is the Christ (for it
says, ‘I shall not place my hand on him, because he is the Christ of the Lord),
and Cyrus likewise (it says’ Thus says the Lord to Cyrus my Christ), and that
the Babylonian is holy (for it says, ‘I shall command them; they are sanctified
and I myself lead them’), so too we say that Christ the Lord is God and Son
and holy and Christ. But although there is a similar sharing of names, there is
not the same dignity. (Ibid., 271)
So that you may learn it is
saying) that there was a distinct conjunction of the Godhead, which was seen
even in the babyhood of the Lord’s flesh. For the same was both a baby and the
Lord of the baby. You praised the saying but do not applaud it without
examination. For I said: the same was a baby and dwelt in a baby. (Ibid.,
273)
