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
I. Fragments
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.1
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.2
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' 3 but 'of those' .... for not of the natures. . .4
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. . . .5
Fragm. 243. But then Nestorius, rebuking from exile the patriarch 6 Cyril, wrote unto Theodoret: Here with a view to dissembling [the truth] he confounds the properties of the natures.7
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?' 8 For the people [that is] striving with God is from the beginning and is warring with the holy fathers.9 |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.10
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.11
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,12 he introduces the Theopaschitan who says these things: 'For the nature of the flesh is passible and changeable newly created;13 yet [it is] thus on the contrary the godhead's very own, as both of them subsist14 in one and the same nature.15
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. . . .16
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 man as any addition. For without the ousia which was made man no 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.17
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.18
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.19
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.20
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.21
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 22 suffer for its 22 sake, in order that he might leave him to adhere to us that the dispensation might be fulfilled?23
VI. Fragm. 254. From the books of Nestorius; blasphemies. From the homily against the Jews, of which the commencement is this: 'How great is the might of him who was crucified,' cry out the devils who possess not that which they used to possess.
And after other things: Dost thou not hear what these say .... who are warring and falling and they convince him that is abhorred of the judgement concerning the people? We indeed rebuke not in anything; [but] dost thou not tremble to surpass the proper measure? Dost thou not judge that excess of praise exaggerated beyond what is proper is worthy of censure? Dost thou not hear what a child, |387 praising [thee], says on thine account? For they saw not him who was concealed in the visible.24
VIII. Fragm. 270-272. From another homily, of which the commencement is this: There is nothing harder to the souls of men than the sickness of ignorance.25
Fragm. 270. And after other things: But I know not how of a sudden they, being sick with ignorance, have been found [as those] who are equal with them that have not heard; and somehow they err with an astonishing error, not being placed with the heretics as were the lovers of the church, and have fallen away as heretics from the teachings of the church. But these are wretched rather than heretics; for these indeed make God the Word younger than the essence of the Father, while they even make bold to blaspheme with similes; for in the nature of the divinity youngness of existence and age of days are not.26
Fragm. 271. Of the mediator then the mother is she that bore Christ, the Virgin; but the divinity of the mediator existed before she bare the mediator. How then did she bear one older than her[self]? Why dost thou prepare God the Word for the creation of the spirit? For, if God the Word is he who was born of her but he who was born of her exists according to the word of the angels from the Holy Spirit, God the Word is to be celebrated as a creation of the Spirit.27
And again: If thou conceivest of him who in the nature was born of the Virgin in the course of months, so [is] he man who was born of a virgin according to the word of him who was born, who said: 'Why seek ye to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth among you?' And again: 'One is God, one also the mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ, a man who was born of the race of David.' 28
Fragm. 272. And after other things: Hear both things: Paul preaching: 'Of the Jews is Christ who was in flesh.' |388 What then? A mere man is Christ, O blessed Paul? No; but 'a man on the one hand is Christ in flesh, in the divinity on the other hand God over all'.29
X. Fragm. 300. An homily delivered by Nestorius against the Theopaschitans: As in regard to the abuses [uttered] against the true and natural union----as that which we 30 say: that the flesh vanished and was transformed by the nature of the Word, as an eddy of water which the sea swallows up----as Nestorius himself says: A statue without bulk of water, which vanishes at once in the vastness of the sea.31
XII. Fragm. 297. And in the homily which is inscribed 'The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a banquet for his son',32 and so on; and about the Incarnation, of which the commencement is: Fearful and pleasant is the trumpet for the reading of the Gospel. This he wrote.
The union then of the natures is not divided: the ousias of these, which are united, are divided. This [consists] not in the annulling 33 of the union but in the understanding of the flesh and of the divinity.34 Hear the same clearly:35 Christ 36 is indivisible in that [he is] Christ 37 but double 38 in that [he is] God and man; in the sonship simple, [but] double 39 in that which he has put on and in that which is put on; sole in the prosopon of the Son, [but], as in [the case of] the two eyes,40 dissimilar in the natures of the divinity and of the humanity; for we know not two Christs or Sons or an original and a new only-begotten, nor a first and a second Christ, but one and the same who is visible in nature created and not created.41
Fragm. 308. For we know not two Christs or Sons or only-begottens or Lords; nor one and another Son nor an |389 original and a new only-begotten nor a first and a second Christ, but one and the same who is visible in the invisible and the visible nature. Can a man, when he hears these things, say that something else was said by him and by those at Chalcedon and by Leo? For openly he is bold and knows the same Christ who is visible in the invisible and the visible nature nor has said two Christs and two sons and Lords. And the Council of Chalcedon said: 'One and the same Christ, son, lord, only-begotten, in two natures, not changeably, not confusedly, not divisibly.'42
Fragm. 312. For we know not two Christs or two sons or Lords nor original and new only-begotten nor a first and a second Christ but one and the same, who is visible in the uncreated and the created nature.43
Fragm. 292. Christ in that [he is] Christ is not divided; for we have not two Christs or two sons, for there is not with us a first and a second Christ nor one and another, nor again one son and again another; but the son is double not by authority but by nature. And again: Preserving then without confusion the adherence of the natures.44
Fragm. 285. Who is visible in the created and the uncreated nature.43
Fragm. 287 is identical except for the omission of one enclitic pronoun.
XIV. Fragm. 262-264. From another homily which is called 'the Explanation of the Teaching', of which the commencement is this: Not with clamour do I judge the love which is toward me but with longing for the teaching of the faith.45
Fragm. 262. And after other things: Again, I say it clearly: not an ordinary danger is ignorance of the teaching of the faith. And I see that many indeed in our assemblies have modesty and ardent piety but slip out of ignorance respecting the teaching of the faith. But this is no rebuke for the people but----[to speak] as one who will say it suitably----[it is] because |390 the teachers have not time to set before you the exact teaching of the faith. Our Lord Christ then in his divinity is consubstantial with the Father and the creator of the blessed Mary; for he is the maker of all. But in his manhood he is the son of the blessed Mary; yet he is our Lord Christ, who is double in his divinity and in his manhood. But for this reason also I turn aside from ornate speech because [so] I shall be understood by [my] hearers. Our Lord Christ, who is double in his divinity and in his humanity, is one Son by adhesion. One then is he [who] was born of Mary that bare Christ, the Son of God. Many times do I say the same things, because [so] thou wilt not again, when thou goest forth, calumniate the Word. Remember, I pray, what is said by you; for there are many calumniators. I extol praise for piety, but I require the Trinity. He then who was born of Mary that bare Christ is one Son of God; but the Son of God is double in the natures: God and man. Here sharpen for me your hearing. For here is a [cause of] trespass for them on whom is laid the prosopon of piety; for they say that the bishop calls Christ a mere man. Then behold! how many witnesses [there are] to what is said! Our Lord Christ is God and man. I call not Christ a mere man, O excellent [man], but one adhering to God the Word.46
Fragm. 263. And after other things: That then which I was saying: 'I believe in one God'----that belief possesses the common name of the natures: 'in one God Almighty, maker of all things made, visible and invisible.' Give heed therefore from here [onwards] with [all] exactness: 'and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God.' Give heed, I would persuade |you], to what is said: The fathers were able to say: 'I believe also in one God the Word the Son of God, who was begotten of the Father.'47
And again: The blessed and holy company of the Fathers takes up the name of our Lord Christ and calls him the creator of all, consubstantial with the Father. None was able to rebuke [thee] and say: 'Thou sayest that he who |391 was born yesterday is consubstantial with the Father. But the title which has been laid down, which indicates both the divinity and the humanity----but we mean that of "Christ"----makes the fathers hold both of them true. Consubstantial with the Father is Christ: this is true; for in the divinity he is eternal. Consubstantial with us [is he] naturally: this is true; for he too was a man as we also [are]. Again how many times is exception taken to the saying, if an heretic is near and says: "Behold!" he says " man as we also [are] " and introduces our Lord [as] a mere [man]!'48
Fragm. 264. And after other things: I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God; for God the Word is not distinct from him.
And after other things: Many times am I forced to say the same things. For I fear those who change the words 'in one Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God who was begotten by the Father before all worlds'. Behold! thou hast [there] a birth before all worlds. Can what was born before all the worlds be born another time?
And after other things: Give heed to the words. Believe; I lie not in what I say. These things have been said of me by some of the reverent clergy: 'My lord bishop is blaming God.' Until I came none of us took notice of the words of the bishops of Nicaea, that we are saying these things.
And after other things: For this reason, where the Word is laid down, the birth from a woman is not laid down, but [it is laid down] thus: 'And the Word became flesh'; he says not: 'And the Word was born through the flesh.' For this would have been for us to introduce a second birth of the divinity.49
XXI. Fragm. 306. 'About the Faith' or 'the Deposit of the Faith'. But if those Theopaschitans, while holding true the religion of Apollinarius, were to say that one nature showed itself after the union, is it proper for us with much indignation to turn our faces from them because they impiously alienate the two natures from their properties in consequence of the |392 mixture and the confusion? They therefore as far as concerns them let neither the divine [nature] in that it [exists] nor the human persist in that each one of them falls away from its own ousia through the mixture and the confusion and is altered into the other. But if they say that the natures are of necessity neither mixed nor confused, they are constrained to concede not one nature of Christ but two, impassible and passible; and there is established the dogma, accounted true: [that the nature] of the Trinity is of the same ousia with the impassible divinity.50
Fragm. 216. Not one nature but two are we constrained to concede in Christ.51
Fragm. 215. One and the same which is visible in the nature not created and created.52
And again: Not one nature but two are we constrained to concede in Christ.53
Fragm. 209. But also in the homily which is inscribed 'About the Faith' or 'the Deposit of the Faith': that which is the commencement thereof we confess, [namely] the dogma 'of one ousia'. He wrote thus: But if we were to say ... of both of them that there are before the union as in a story two natures. They are to be understood as if in a temporal comparison. This [it is] which was said by the holy Cyril to Nestorius.54
Fragm. 291. 'About the Faith', namely 'the Deposit of the Faith'. Because in all of them those two natures also, complete and not transformed 55 nor distinguished, are seen in our Lord Christ and every nature acknowledges these things [as] its own. . . .
And again: In consequence of these which are known as one Christ 56 in two natures, God and man, the visible and the |393 invisible, he will hold the future judgement. As there is one judge in the two natures,57 so also in every one of the natures is there one Son, because according to the decision of the Apostles that invisible [nature], God the Word, is about to hold the judgement in a visible man whom he has raised even from the dead; and there is one judge in every one of the natures, just as also [there is] one Son in the two natures.58
Fragm. 277 is identical with Fragm. 291.
Fragm. 224. And each one acknowledges these things as its own. And in another place: What we have also laid down among the things which have been examined before: one and the same which is visible in the uncreated and the created nature.59
Fragm. 223. One and the same which is visible in the uncreated and the created nature; and because in everything those two natures also, complete and not confused and not far apart, are seen in our Lord Christ and every one acknowledges these things [as] its own. . . .59
Fragm. 228. But one and the same which is visible in the uncreated and the created nature.59
Fragm. 229. And again in another homily which is inscribed 'On account of the Faith ', namely 'the Deposit of the Faith' of which the commencement is: 'We confess the dogma "of one ousia",' Nestorius [says]: Because in all of them . . . 60 (continued as in Fragm. 291).
Fragm. 280. Concerning Nestorius having said 'one prosopon out of two [natures]': his own words, from the homily which is called 'Concerning the Faith'. For harm was not done to the uniqueness of the Son by the diversity of the natures, But in such wise as the corruptible body is one thing and further the immortal soul is another thing, yet one man is constituted of them both, so from the mortal and the immortal, from the corruptible and from the incorruptible, and from what is subject to beginning and from the nature which |394 has no beginning, that is of God the Word, I confess one prosopon of the Son.61
XXII. Fragm. 256. From another homily which is inscribed 'Concerning the Learning', of which the commencement is this: Behold! already the time of the holy mysteries is nigh. And after other things: One is the temple which was made by the Holy Spirit and another is God, who sanctifies the temple; and the one indeed can be destroyed, while the other accepts not [its] destruction but even restores that which is destroyed, him who is hung upon the cross and after three days is built anew.62
XXIII. Fragm. 314. From the homily which is inscribed 'When the [passage]: How many times, if my brother sins against me, shall I forgive him? is read:'63 But I, that is the person of the Church for all of them,64 unto whom I speak, before every man,65 lay down66 one and the same, naming Christ a whole67 God and a whole67 man, natures which are not mixed68 but which are united.69
Fragm. 289. In the homily which is inscribed 'About the [passage]: The kingdom of heaven (was) is likened unto a certain king' and so on, he said thus: But I, that is the person of the Church, for all of them unto whom I speak say the same unto every man, naming whole man and whole God, natures which arc not mixed but which are united.70
XXIV. Fragm. 265-267. From another homily, of which the commencement is this: Although there is among men some great vehemence of impiety. . . . |395
Fragm. 265. And after other things: For there was seen by him, I say, an angel from heaven which strengthened him; but it strengthened him as many times as the picture of agony was stirred up in our Lord who alone could [suffer] in the sufferings of him who was visible. And after other things: This one thing thou lackest only, that thou shouldest be led as a lamb to the slaughter and be silent as a sheep before the shearer. This is the summit of thy [qualities] illustrious and divine and the height of honours worthy of adoration and the great mystery of the victories over Satan. For when thou tastest death, thou dost cause death to die, when thou goest down to Sheol, thou dost liberate the dead; when thou art crucified with robbers, through these thou dost seize the day of sinners. Thou desirest not, O Lord, death which is victorious; the cross [it is] which fills a short time, death fills a time, the grave three days. But the lordship of an everlasting kingdom in heaven----these are after the grave. All these things, O Theopaschitan, thou makest into parables and into 'he suffered an impassible suffering', as thou sayest. For he who suffers impassibly has no need of things to strengthen him; for why should it have been required that he who suffers not with suffering should need strengthening? 71
Fragm. 266. And after unimportant things: For just as is my opinion concerning the suffering, such also is it concerning the resurrection; as [is the doctrine] that thou givest death to be destroyed, which is the truth, so is this: that thou givest also the resurrection which has destroyed death. For if the suffering of the divinity is an impassible suffering, so is the destruction of the suffering an indestructive destruction. For with the newness of the words [spoken] by them concerning the teaching of the faith I am forced to coin new words for new terms.72
Fragm. 267. And after other things: Why are you disturbed and [why] do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my |396 hands and my feel, that [it is I who] have come; touch me and see. A spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see that I have. Why then, in letting the hands and feet of him who suffered be felt and teaching therefrom the resurrection as he has commanded, dost thou touch the nature that cannot be touched as though it has suffered? Why changest thou the sacrifice of the Lord? Why dost thou sacrifice instead of the lamb him who has raised up the sheep that was slain? Instead of the sheep thou slayest the divinity which has accepted the sacrifice of the sheep. If thou slayest the divinity as a sheep, thou makest the power of the sacrifice a dead thing. For this reason had John, when he saw our Lord, said: 'Behold! the Lamb of God,' not: 'Behold! the lamb God.' For he who is visible is the lamb and he who is concealed is God. These [properties] of the natures are distinguished.
And after other things: As lord of the hosts of the angels with God the Word is he who is visible; for he has given him, he says, a name which is more excellent than all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of those in heaven and of those on earth, and so on. But with him who [was] visible God the Word was not strengthened by the voice of an angel at the season of the suffering. The flesh possessed with God the Word the authority of a judge; for God, he says, has appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in justice in the man whom he hath appointed, giving the faith to every man in that he has raised him from the dead.73
XXV. Fragm. 257. From another homily,74 of which the commencement was:75 All hearts which longing for God has seized beforehand and which none of the things which are of this world either afflict or elate. . . .
And after other things: If he said: 'Who was born of Mary?' I return answer unto him at once: 'The man who adheres to God, the man who is honoured above all men on account of God who adheres to him. |397
And again: I have said 'the Son' and I have confessed the two brief [phrases], both 'the created nature' and 'the uncreated'. The power of the Lord's flesh and of his divinity [is] the same;l the same is the adoration of him who appears and of him who appears not.
And after unimportant [things]: But both of them76 have one and the very same authority. The angels therefore see him who appears and with him adore him who is concealed in him who appears; for there is no distinction [of him] from him who appears with honour but only in the property of the nature.77
Fragm. 302. For that unjust man in the exposition concerning the [passage]: 'I have not spoken of mine own will'78 and so on, wrote thus: The Son is not to be entitled 'God the Word' distinctly nor yet man distinctly; for this is indeed nothing else than to construct two natures. But the term 'sonship' is common to both the natures. I have said 'the Son'; two natures have I indicated. I have said 'Christ' and have not divided either of the natures in the sonship.79
D. FRAGMENTS OF UNCERTAIN LOCATION
XIV. Fragm. 231. He who said: 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' was human nature,80 O wise man.81
Fragm. 237 b. And again in another place he said, as I have deposed above: He who said .... was human nature, O wise man.82
XV. Fragm. 210. In the homily 'On account of the Incarnation' Nestorius wrote thus: I hold then to the two natures in the one title 'Christ', because the one 83 is not known apart from the other.84
XVI. Fragm. 242 a. For if we were to have said, as Nestorius: A man who, complete in his own hypostasis, in honour and by mercy only adheres to the Word.85 |398
XVII. Fragm. 244 a. But, as Nestorius, in predicating two natures in one Christ, began: It is known to all of them who hear and are willing to speak the truth.86
[XVIII]. Fragm. 296. And simultaneously he shows in what capacities he calls Christ one, that is, in authority and in greatness; for they define the gift of sonship [as] the source87 of authority.88 |399
[Appendices 2-4 have been omitted]
[Selected footnotes]
1. 1 See op. cit., pp. 196-7 and 365.
2. 2 See op. cit., pp. 197-8 and 365-6.
5. 3 See op. cit., pp. 197-8 and 366.
7. 5 See op. cit., pp. 198 and 366.
8. 6 Cp. Jer. ii. 18; the Hebr. text as well as the Pesh. have 'the waters of Shihor'.
9. 7 See op. cit., pp. 201-2 and 367.
13. 4 Fragm. 307: and the nature [is] newly created.
14. 5 Fragm. 307: 'in an identity of natural quality' (sc. ἰσοφυία).
15. 6 See op. cit., pp. 209, 210, and 369.
17. 6 See op. cit., pp. 210 and 369-70.
18. 7 See op, cit., pp. 210 and 370.
19. 8 See op. cit., pp. 211 and 370.
20. 1 See op. cit., pp. 218 and 371.
21. 2 I.e. possibly 'the infinity '. See op. cit., pp. 218-19 and 371.
23. 4 See op. cit., pp. 219 and 371.
24. 1 See op. cit., pp. 243 and 372.
25. 2 See op. cit., p. 372 (cp. p. 245, ll. 1-2).
26. 4 See op. cit., pp. 245 and 373.
27. 5 See op. cit., pp. 247 and 373.
28. 6 See op. cit., pp. 247-8 and 373.
29. 1 See op. cit., pp. 248 and 373.
31. 3 See op. cit., pp. 131 and 374.
33. 5 Fragm. 221: divided, not in the annulling.
34. 6 Fragm. 221: in the consideration of the divinity and of the humanity.
35. 7 Fragm. 221: very evidently indeed.
37. 9 Fragm. 221: in that he is Christ.
39. 11 Fragm. 221 and 241: but double.
40. 12 Fragm. 221: as in [the case of] two eyes.
41. 13 See op. cit., pp. 279-80 and 374.
44. 3 See op. cit., pp. 281 and 376.
45. 4 See op. cit., pp. 282 and 376.
46. 2 See op. cit., pp. 282-4 and 377.
47. 3 See op. cit., pp. 284 and 377-8.
48. 1 See op. cit., pp. 284-5 and 378.
49. 2 See op. cit., pp. 285-8 and 378.
50. 2 See op. cit., pp. 329 and 379.
52. 4 See op. cit., pp. 330 and 379.
54. 7 See op. cit., pp. 329, 11., and 379.
55. 8 Fragm. 224, 228, and 229: confused.
56. 9 Fragm. 228 and 229: one son.
57. 2 Fragm. 228 and 229: in each one of the natures.
58. 3 See op. cit., pp. 330 and 380.
60. 5 See op. cit., pp. 380-1.
61. 1 Or: that is, I confess that God the Word [is] one prosopon of the Son (Loofs). See op. cit., pp. 330-1 and 381.
62. 2 See op. cit., pp. 331 and 381.
63. 3 Matt, xviii. 21 Fragm. 228 (as introduction): for he said in another book of his. Fragm. 217: as Nestorius has written.
64. 5 Fragm. 228: those; Fragm. 230 and 294: these.
65. 6 Fragm. 228: before all of them.
66. 7 Fragm. 228: I propose; Fragm. 217: I prove.
69. 10 Fragm. 228: not mixed but united. See op. cit., pp. 332 and 382.
71. 4 See op. cit., pp. 332-3 and 383-4.
72. 5 See op. cit., pp. 333 4 and 384.
73. 4 Acts xvii. 31. See op. cit., pp. 334-5 and 384-5.
74. 5 Fragm. 313: from the homily.
76. 1 Fragm. 286 and 313: is the same.
77. 2 See op. cit., pp. 335-6 and 385.
79. 4 See op. cit., pp. 336 and 386.
80. 6 Fragm. 233: the nature of the humanity.
81. 7 See op. cit., pp. 360 and 387.
84. 10 Viz. the man Christ. See op cit., pp. 361 and 387.
85. 11 See op. cit., pp. 361 and 388.
86. 1 See op. cit., pp. 361 and 388.
88. 3 See op. cit., pp. 361 and 388; according to Loofs this fragment is a reference to, not a quotation from, Nestorius' own words.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode.
| Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts |