this disputed point. "You ask," he says in his first sermon, " whether Mary may be called another of God. Has God, then, a mother? If so, heathenism itself is excusable in assigning mothers to its gods; but then Paul is a liar, for he said of the deity of Christ that it was without father, without mother, and without de- scent (Heb. vii,3 : dmiTiop, d^ijTojp, dvtv yf I'tnAoyiot). No, my dear sir, Mary did not bear God ; . . . the creat- ure bore not the uncreated Creator, but the man who is the instrument of the Godhead; the Holy Ghost conceived not the Logos, but formed for him, out of the virgin, a temple which he might inhabit (John ii, 21). The incarnate God did not die, but quickened him in whom he was made flesh. . . . This garment, which he used, I honor on account of the God which was covered therein and inseparable therefrom; . . . / separate the natures, but I unite the wojskip. Consider what this must mean. He who was formed in the womb of Mary was not himself God, but God assumed him [^asstimsit, i. e. clothed himself with humanity], and on account of him who assumed, he who was assumed is also called God." A controversy now ensued in which the enemies of Nestorius, not comprehending the danger which he saw to be involved in the use of the word theotolcos, charged him most unjustly with holding the Photiniau and Samosatenian views, which asserted that Jesus was born of Mary as a mere man ; or, in other words, they accused him of denj'ing the divinity of Christ. The question was very keenly agitated, both among the clergy and laity, whether Mary was entitled to be called the mother of God. In this dispute Nestorius took an active part, adhering firmly to the doctrine of the school of Antioch. Dupin {Bihliotheque, i, 4-12, cd. 1722) thus summarizes his views as expounded by hiiuself : L He expresslj- rejected the error of those who said that Christ was a mere man, as Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus. 2. He maintained that the Word was united to the hu- manity in Christ Jesus, and that this union was mott intimate and strict. 3. He maintained that these two natures made one Christ, one Son, one Person. 4. And that this Person may have either divine or human properties attributed to him. But his words contra- dicted this formal enunciation of his doctrine. His il- lustrations proved that he did not allow the hypostatic union, but admitted a moral union only. A contem- porary writer (^RLirius Mercator, Ojiei-a [Paris, 1673, ed. GarnicrJ), who lived in the first half of the fifth century, says that Nestorius was sound in most of the Catholic trutJis on this question taken seriatim. He was sound " de persona divina assumente," also "de natura humana assumpta," and also "de tempore, quo primura extitit unio;" all these positions being demonstrated by ex- tracts from extant sermons and other writings of Nes- torius. But he was unsound " de genere unionis." He certainly allowed only a moral union, " Deus et homo unum tantuni moraliter." Hence the incarnation ac- cording to him was " tioiKijauj, «'»'('(X?;i/.(c, Ivipyna, tvoj^S-jowTTT/iTif." There were two natures in Christ, and the properties in each should be very carefully dis- tinguished— "du£e in Christo reipsa hypostases; secer- nenda singulorum idiomata." Nor would he allow hu- man attributes to be predicated of the divine nature of Christ: "Nee quas unius tribuenda alteri, nisi kgSi' i^ioi'v- fiiai; vel axtriK^uQ." Rogers {Parker Soc. p. 55) quotes an opposite passage in this connection : ^ijo] yap Ivw- Bijvai riv 5iiv \6yov t<^ tic MeipiaQ diSfpiimiii, wcwip t'i TiQ (piXoQ (piXtp 'ii'djcti' ^id (7X«<Teo;t; 7ro/o7ro (Nicrph- orus, xviii, 48). He denied therefore that God the Son had endured human suffering or gone through human experiences, and he necessarily rejected, according to the above view, the term OeoroKoi;, and proposed Xpic- TOTOKOQ as an alternative. There is abundant proof from his works of his denial of the hypostatic union. He compared the union of the two natures in Christ to marriage ; he spoke of Christ's humanity being the habit, the temple of his divinity. He said that Thomas had touched him that was risen again, and honored him
NESTORIUS
974
NESTORIUS