Conversation with Nestorius about the fact that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, and not the Mother of Christ

The essay “Conversation with Nestorius about the fact that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, and not the Mother of Christ” is a polemical dialogue, which includes fragments of Nestorius’s homilies read at the Third Ecumenical Council, and the answers of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The second interlocutor proves the hypostatic unity of the God-man - the Virgin Mary gave birth not just to a man, but to the One Person of God the Word, incarnate, and therefore She is the Mother of God. As arguments, quotes from the Holy Scriptures, patristic testimonies and logical arguments about the inseparability of Divinity and humanity in Christ are given. The author consistently refutes the arguments of Nestorius, proving that God the Word was incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and therefore She is rightfully called the Mother of God. Nestorius speaks of the separation in Christ of “two Sons” - the Divine Logos and the man Jesus, because of which the Virgin Mary, in his opinion, gave birth only to the human nature of Christ (“Christ Mother”). Although the composition is attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria, some modern researchers admit that the text could have been written by one of his students or supporters and in the spirit of his theology. *The title of the work in Greek is Διάλεξις πρὸς Νεστόριον. *The title of the work in Latin is Dialogus cum Nestorio. Nestorius: Whenever divine Scripture speaks of the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary, or of (His) death, nowhere does it use (the name of) God, but (the name of) Christ or the Lord or Jesus, since these three (names) designate two natures, sometimes one, sometimes the other. For example, I will say this: when the Apostle tells us about the birth of Christ from the Virgin, he says: “God sent His Son, born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4); he did not say: “he sent God the Word,” but uses the name (Son), showing two beings, namely God and man, since Christ is twofold; for the Virgin gave birth to the Son of God (in the sense) in which it is said: “You are naturally gods, and you are all sons of the Most High” (Psalm 81:6); Therefore, we learned from Scripture to call the Holy Virgin - Christ Mother, Mother of God, Mother of Man; Nowhere were they ever taught to call her the Mother of God. Cyril: Isaiah cries out in the Spirit, saying: “Behold, the virgin will be with child and give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel: as it is said, God is with us” (Matthew 1:23). So, the born (is) God, whether you like it or not. Nestorius: The angel said to Joseph: “Rise up, drink the Child and His Mother, and flee to Egypt, and be there until the river reaches the river” (Matthew 2:13); but did not say: “drink God and His Mother.” Cyril: But the Archangel Gabriel says to the Virgin: “The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You: in the same way, the holy thing to be born will be called the Son of the Most High” (Luke 1:35). Nestorius: The Apostle said: “I have humbled myself, and have taken on the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7), which means that I have taken on our body, therefore, “he has increased in wisdom and stature and grace with God and man” (Luke 2:52), as the Lord’s man. Kirill: Everything born of the flesh is flesh; but this does not destroy the miraculousness of birth; for just as God gives birth divinely, so the divine Virgin gave birth in the flesh of God to the Word of God. Nestorius: Every mother gives birth to what is consubstantial with herself; therefore, She is not His mother if He is not consubstantial with Her: for how can He be His mother when He is alien to Her essence? Kirill: We were taught to confess the One Son from the Virgin and from the Holy Spirit, consubstantial with the Mother as with the Father, as the Fathers said. Nestorius: I separate natures, I unite worship, since God is inseparable from Him Whom we see; therefore I do not separate veneration. Cyril: He who divides natures speaks of two Sons, not believing the Scripture, which says: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14). Nestorius: Paul says: “The Apostle and Holy One of the confession of our being Jesus, being faithful to Him who created Him” (Heb. 3:1-2); He offered Himself as a sacrifice for Himself, as well as for the people; why he appears as a High Priest before God. Cyril: Paul says: “Christ alone was brought to bear the sins of many; the second will appear without sin” (Heb. 9:28). And again (Apostle Peter says): “Thou shalt not commit sin, lest flattery be found in His mouth” (1 Peter 2:22). And so He offers Himself for us. So, look, He did not offer Himself for Himself, but for people. Nestorius: He Himself said: “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood will live through Me, just as I live for the sake of the Father who sent Me” (paraphrase - John 6:56–57). So, what are you eating, heretic? Deity or humanity? For Christ did not say “he who eats My deity,” but “flesh.” Kirill: With faith I partake of the life-giving flesh of the life-giving Word; Therefore, the Savior said: “Those who eat of this bread will never taste death” (paraphrase - John 6:58). Those who partake unworthily will be condemned for unbelief. Nestorius: “The Lord sent Me, and His Spirit” (Is. 48:16); “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, for His anointing” (Isa. 61:1). Therefore (David) says: “Anointed You, O God, Your God is more than Your partaker with the oil of joy” (Psalm 44:28). So, understand the Anointed One, confess the Anointed One and worship the church for the sake of Him who dwells in it. Kirill: I confess the One Son from two - from the Holy Spirit, and the Virgin Mary: I do not divide the One into two. Nestorius: How do you say that He does not know the hour, which the Son does not know, except the Father alone? Or how, knowing, denies? Or not knowing how you are called the Wisdom and Power of God, being partaker of ignorance? Cyril: The Son of God does not know the hour, knowing everything and having the Father in Himself, as He Himself said: “No one knows the Father but the Son” (Matthew 11:27). Knowing only the nature of the Father, which exists first of all, does not the Son of God know the end of the age? Yes it will not; But the Son does not know by grace, and not by nature; (just as) we, (being sons) by grace, do not know everything and do not know anything about what relates to the end of the age. Nestorius: Naturally we hunger and thirst and sleep, not experiencing this at will, but obeying natural necessity. So what? Will it turn out that God will follow the laws of necessity? It won't happen. Kirill: By nature we hunger and thirst and sleep - not by desire, but as slaves of natural necessity. He, not out of necessity, but voluntarily (experienced this). For with five loaves he fed five thousand, and a family again with four thousand. He Himself said: “No one will take My soul from Me, but whenever I am willing, I will” (paraphrase - John 10:18). No man can do this except Christ alone. Nestorius: Are you saying that the Son suffered? Consequently, the Father also suffered. If you say that the Father did not suffer, then you make the Son of another substance to Him. Kirill: I do not call either the Father suffering, or the Son not suffering; but dispassionately - Divinity, since it is incorporeal; the Lord suffers according to the flesh. Nestorius: I do not say that the Word, having become flesh, did not suffer; for the Divinity is impassive. And the Passionless One is above suffering; the flesh is passionate and human nature is mortal. Kirill: And we confess the Divinity dispassionate; in the flesh It accepted suffering; hence – “Christ who suffered in the flesh for us” (1 Peter 4:1). The name - Christ - is not alien to God; for the Apostle says: “From them is Christ, who is God above all, blessed forever. Amen” (Rom. 9:5). You might be interested in: