Relevant
books
available at Amazon
 
John McGuckin -----
 
Susan Wessel -----
 
G. R. Driver The Bazaar of Heracleides -----
 
J. F. Bethune-Baker -----
 
Friedrich Loofs |
Nestorius sends greeting in the Lord to the most
religious and reverend fellow-minister Cyril.
I pass over the insults against us contained in your extraordinary letter. They
will, I think, be cured by my patience and by the answer which events will offer
in the course of time. On one matter, however, I cannot be silent, as silence
would in that case be very dangerous. On that point, therefore avoiding
longwindedness as far as I can, I shall attempt a brief discussion and try to be
as free as possible from repelling obscurity and undigestible prolixity. I shall
begin from the wise utterances of your reverence, setting them down word for
word. What then are the words in which your remarkable teaching finds expression
? "The holy and great synod states that the only begotten Son, begotten of God
the Father according to nature, true God from true God, the light from the
light, the one through whom the Father made all things, came down, became
incarnate, became man, suffered, rose." These are the words of your reverence
and you may recognise them. Now listen to what we say, which takes the form of a
brotherly exhortation to piety of the type of which the great apostle Paul gave
an example in addressing his beloved Timothy: "Attend to the public reading of
scripture, to preaching, to teaching. For by so doing you will save both
yourself and your hearers". Tell me, what does "attend" mean? By reading in a
superficial way the tradition of those holy men (you were guilty of a pardonable
ignorance), you concluded that they said that the Word who is coeternal with the
Father was passible. Please look more closely at their language and you will
find out that that divine choir of fathers never said that the consubstantial
godhead was capable of suffering, or that the whole being that was coeternal
with the Father was recently born, or that it rose again, seeing that it had
itself been the cause of resurrection of the destroyed temple. If you apply my
words as fraternal medicine, I shall set the words of the holy fathers before
you and shall free them from the slander against them and through them against
the holy scriptures. "I believe", they say, "also in our Lord Jesus Christ, his
only begotten Son". See how they first lay as foundations "Lord" and "Jesus" and
"Christ" and "only begotten" and "Son", the names which belong jointly to the
divinity and humanity. Then they build on that foundation the tradition of the
incarnation and resurrection and passion. In this way, by prefixing the names
which are common to each nature, they intend to avoid separating expressions
applicable to sonship and lordship and at the same time escape the danger of
destroying the distinctive character of the natures by absorbing them into the
one title of "Son". In this Paul was their teacher who, when he remembers the
divine becoming man and then wishes to introduce the suffering, first mentions
"Christ", which, as I have just said, is the common name of both natures and
then adds an expression which is appropriate to both of the natures. For what
does he say ? "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus
who though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to
be grasped", and so on until, "he became obedient unto death, even death on a
cross". For when he was about to mention the death, to prevent anyone supposing
that God the Word suffered, he says "Christ", which is a title that expresses in
one person both the impassible and the passible natures, in order that Christ
might be called without impropriety both impassible and passible impassible in
godhead, passible in the nature of his body. I could say much on this subject
and first of all that those holy fathers, when they discuss the economy, speak
not of the generation but of the Son becoming man. But I recall the promise of
brevity that I made at the beginning and that both restrains my discourse and
moves me on to the second subject of your reverence.
In that I applaud your division of natures into manhood and godhead and their
conjunction in one person. I also applaud your statement that God the Word
needed no second generation from a woman, and your confession that the godhead
is incapable of suffering. Such statements are truly orthodox and equally
opposed to the evil opinions of all heretics about the Lord's natures. If the
remainder was an attempt to introduce some hidden and incomprehensible wisdom to
the ears of the readers, it is for your sharpness to decide. In my view these
subsequent views seemed to subvert what came first. They suggested that he who
had at the beginning been proclaimed as impassible and incapable of a second
generation had somehow become capable of suffering and freshly created, as
though what belonged to God the Word by nature had been destroyed by his
conjunction with his temple or as though people considered it not enough that
the sinless temple, which is inseparable from the divine nature, should have
endured birth and death for sinners, or finally as though the Lord's voice was
not deserving of credence when it cried out to the Jews: "Destroy this temple
and in three days I will raise it up." He did not say, "Destroy my godhead and
in three days it will be raised up." Again I should like to expand on this but
am restrained by the memory of my promise. I must speak therefore but with
brevity.
Holy scripture, wherever it recalls the Lord's economy, speaks of the birth and
suffering not of the godhead but of the humanity of Christ, so that the holy
virgin is more accurately termed mother of Christ than mother of God. Hear these
words that the gospels proclaim: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,
son of David, son of Abraham." It is clear that God the Word was not the son of
David. Listen to another witness if you will: "Jacob begat Joseph, the husband
of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ. " Consider a further
piece of evidence: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When
his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be with child of
the holy Spirit." But who would ever consider that the godhead of the only
begotten was a creature of the Spirit? Why do we need to mention: "the mother of
Jesus was there"? And again what of: "with Mary the mother of Jesus"; or "that
which is conceived in her is of the holy Spirit"; and "Take the child and his
mother and flee to Egypt"; and "concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of
David according to the flesh"? Again, scripture says when speaking of his
passion: "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,
he condemned sin in the flesh"; and again "Christ died for our sins" and "Christ
having suffered in the flesh"; and "This is", not "my godhead", but "my body,
broken for you". Ten thousand other expressions witness to the human race that
they should not think that it was the godhead of the Son that was recently
killed but the flesh which was joined to the nature of the godhead. (Hence also
Christ calls himself the lord and son of David: " 'What do you think of the
Christ ? Whose son is he ?' They said to him, 'The son of David.' Jesus answered
and said to them, 'How is it then that David inspired by the Spirit, calls him
Lord, saying, "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand"?'". He said this
as being indeed son of David according to the flesh, but his Lord according to
his godhead.) The body therefore is the temple of the deity of the Son, a temple
which is united to it in a high and divine conjunction, so that the divine
nature accepts what belongs to the body as its own. Such a confession is noble
and worthy of the gospel traditions. But to use the expression "accept as its
own" as a way of diminishing the properties of the conjoined flesh, birth,
suffering and entombment, is a mark of those whose minds are led astray, my
brother, by Greek thinking or are sick with the lunacy of Apollinarius and Arius
or the other heresies or rather something more serious than these. For it is
necessary for such as are attracted by the name "propriety" to make God the Word
share, because of this same propriety, in being fed on milk, in gradual growth,
in terror at the time of his passion and in need of angelical assistance. I make
no mention of circumcision and sacrifice and sweat and hunger, which all belong
to the flesh and are adorable as having taken place for our sake. But it would
be false to apply such ideas to the deity and would involve us in just
accusation because of our calumny. These are the traditions of the holy fathers.
These are the precepts of the holy scriptures. In this way does someone write in
a godly way about the divine mercy and power, "Practise these duties, devote
yourself to them, so that all may see your progress." This is what Paul says to
all.
The care you take in labouring for those who have been scandalised is well taken
and we are grateful to you both for the thought you devote to things divine and
for the concern you have even for those who live here. But you should realise
that you have been misled either by some here who have been deposed by the holy
synod for Manichaeism or by clergy of your own persuasion. In fact the church
daily progresses here and through the grace of Christ there is such an increase
among the people that those who behold it cry out with the words of the prophet,
"The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the water covers the
sea". As for our sovereigns, they are in great joy as the light of doctrine is
spread abroad and, to be brief, because of the state of all the heresies that
fight against God and of the orthodoxy of the church, one might find that verse
fulfilled, "The house of Saul grew weaker and weaker and the house of David grew
stronger and stronger". This is our advice from a brother to a brother. "If
anyone is disposed to be contentious", Paul will cry out through us to such a
one, "We recognize no other practice, neither do the churches of God". I and
those with me greet all the brotherhood with you in Christ. May you remain
strong and continue praying for us, most honoured and reverent lord.
|
