Nestorius

NESTORIUS : UNDERSTANDING INCARNATION
PROF. M. M. NINAN
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nestorius_bazaar_0_intro.htm#25
https://archive.org/stream/DriverHodgson1925TheBazaarOfHeracleides/Driver%20&%20Hodgson%201925_The%20
Bazaar%20of%20Heracleides_djvu.txt
The Bazaar of Heraclides
In Book I, Part I, Nestorius sets forth his views in contrast to those which he holds to be erroneous.
The section, which is divided into ninety-three numbered sub-sections, to which titles have been
added by the Syriac translator, is cast in the form of a dialogue with one Sophronius. Here
Nestorius sets forth as it were the theme of his thesis, and the remaining doctrinal discussions are
little more than variations on it.
He begins by a brief review of errors.
The heathen, the Jews, the Manichaeans, the followers of Paul of Samosata, of Photinus, and of
Arius are described, and their doctrines criticized. The theories which deny either the true godhead
or the true manhood of Christ, or which involve the changing of one into the other, or the production
of a third nature by the combination of divine nature with human, are pilloried.
In the fifty-fourth sub-section, in passing over to the positive assertion of his own christological
beliefs, he directly denies that he teaches that there were 'Two Sons' in Christ, and the remaining
sub-sections are mainly occupied with a statement of his own position, though the last five are
again devoted to criticisms of other views already mentioned.
Similar criticisms compose the short Part II of Book I. Having thus laid down his doctrinal position,
in Part III Nestorius begins his historical review of the controversy between himself and Cyril. The
remaining doctrinal discussions, lengthy as they are, do not carry us farther. They are concerned
with contrasting his own views with those of Cyril and his followers, and repeat over and over again
two points.
On the one hand his own doctrines are shown to be consistent with the Scriptures, the faith of
Nicaea, and the writings of accepted Fathers of the Church; on the other hand the teaching of Cyril
is exhibited as self-contradictory and, on the points at issue between Cyril and himself, as having
affinities not with orthodoxy but with the heretics described in the opening section of the book.
The place of that opening section in the plan of the book can therefore clearly be seen. In it
Nestorius describes the general doctrinal issues in the field of Christology, and sets the stage for
the discussion of the particular points of the controversy between himself and Cyril.
Did one know precisely what Nestorius meant by the word πρόσωπον, one would know precisely
how he thought of the Incarnation, and would be able to decide whether the logical implications of
his teaching are those of Nestorianism or of orthodoxy. It is certain that he himself did not wish to
teach what is known as 'Nestorianism'. His denunciations of Paul of Samosata and his followers
show that he had no sympathy with those who think of the Incarnation on adoptionist lines, and
when accused of 'Nestorianism', as on pages 19 and 47, he indignantly repudiates any such views.
The intention of his doctrine is accurately summed up in the heading inserted by the Syriac
translator to the fifty-fourth section of the first part of The Bazaar----'Concerning this: that God
the Word became incarnate and there were not two sons but one by a union.'
Nestorius, then, accepted as a matter of religious belief the faith of the Church in a Christ who was
truly God and truly man and truly one, and through reflection on this he produced a theological
83