Now the author of the Nestorian dogma, as many would have it, is acknowledged to be Paul, bishop of Samosata, who, following the doctrine of the ancient heretics, asserted that our Lord Jesus Christ was born and suffered as a mere man; but concerning the holy and most blessed Trinity, as the Greeks relate, he followed the opinion of Sabellius.
And for this reason they say that the Council of Nicaea decreed that the Paulianists must by all means be rebaptized, drawing a distinction between the doctrine of Paul and that of Nestorius, because Nestorius, while confessing the existence of the divinity of the Son of God, believed that Christ was conceived and formed as a mere man, and afterwards advanced into God—that is, a man deified, and not the Word made flesh and dwelling among us, which the Gospel proclaims and the catholic Church confesses. Therefore in the Epitome of the Chronicles Lucentius states this and says:
"In the consulship of Felix and Taurus, Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, attempts to introduce a new error into the Churches, preaching that Christ was born only a man, and not also God, and he says that divinity was conferred upon him according to merit." But Socrates, in his book of Ecclesiastical History, separates Nestorius from Paul, and states their difference thus: "It appears," he says, "that Nestorius was ignorant of the writings of the ancients. Wherefore, as I have said, he dwelt upon mere words. And he not only subjected the word to examination, but altogether denied that he who was born was God. We, however, confess that he who was born of the holy Virgin Mary, and was crucified, is the Lord of glory, as the Apostle says:
'For if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory' (1 Cor. 2:8). Moreover Nestorius says: 'Do not boast, O Jew, you did not crucify God,' as though the Lord of glory himself were not the same as God. For that he does not call Christ a mere man, as Photinus and Paul of Samosata did, the homilies which he composed also show. For nowhere does he do away with the subsistence of the Divine Word, but everywhere he confesses that he subsists, and has subsistence, and not, like Photinus and Paul of Samosata, doing away with his subsistence" (Socrates, book VII, chapter 32). Thus Socrates concerning Paul and Nestorius; and using his testimony, I shall follow up what other reading may answer:
"Nestorius, ignorant of the expositions of the holy Fathers who preached that the Son of God assumed humanity into his person by the union of his nature—a humanity which he does not share in common with the Father—on account of the undivided and inseparable nature of the Father and the Son, refused to call blessed Mary the Mother of God, lest he should ascribe a nativity to the Father as well: not knowing, the madman, that the Father and the Son are one in nature, distinct in persons; for he who begot is not begotten, nor did he who is begotten beget." The Nestorians, ignorant of this, propose to us up to now, as it were, a knotty and insoluble question, shamelessly objecting that we name the Father along with the Son if we confess blessed Mary. But these things being so concerning Nestorius, let us proceed through the work we have begun.
"As many would have it." ] Many cast this infamous origin upon Nestorius, and the very first of all were two laymen, Eusebius, who afterwards was bishop of Dorylaeum, and Marius Mercator; then Pope Celestine in his letter to Nestorius; and finally others indiscriminately—among whom, however, you should not reckon Cyril of Alexandria, for he nowhere traced the origins of the Nestorian heresy higher than to Photinus, Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. "Of the ancient heretics." ] Mercator mentions Ebion, the master of Paul, in his refutation of the Anathematisms of Nestorius; Theodoret mentions Artemon, in book II of his Compendium of Heretical Fables, chapter 8, and the author of the Praedestinatus, heresy 44. "He followed the opinion of Sabellius." ] Far otherwise and
better does Mercator state it in his dissertation on the twelfth anathematism of Nestorius. "The Paulianists." ] The author of the Praedestinatus in the place cited: "It is known to all that these heretics, when they come over, are not rebaptized, but are admitted by the hand of reconciliation, and so are handed over to be joined to the divine people. But concerning the Paulianists the holy synod of Nicaea decreed this, that they be by all means baptized, and so at last be joined to the catholic people. Hence I believe that they do not keep the rule of baptism whole, and that this is why this decree was established by the pontiffs of Christ." "Afterwards advanced into God." ] Nestorius himself protests against this in Mercator. See the first dissertation to the second part of the works of M. Mercator, where the popular opinion is overthrown by the clearest testimonies.
"A man deified." ] Nestorius himself again protests in his first letter to Celestine, in which he reproaches his adversaries for having used the word "deification." "Lucentius." ] The reading is to be retained throughout, despite the protest of that most learned collector of councils, Labbe; for it shows the continuator of Prosper—if indeed of Prosper—not that the man of Aquitaine thinks better in this part; for he too was deceived by Cassian, who put forward the Leporian heresy in place of the Nestorian. See Mercator, in the letter just cited, and dissertation I, likewise just cited. "It appears." ] This passage is either mutilated in the Greek edition, even the latest by Valesius, or interpolated in the Tripartite as far as these words, "doing away with his subsistence." "The homilies which he composed."
] Having lain hidden before, they are now first published in the second part of the works of M. Mercator, and among them is this very one which Socrates mentions. "What other reading may answer." ] Whose, after all, is that? This whole passage is certainly quite involved. I am almost led to believe that it was the work of some annotator, who imposed it upon Liberatus.