God by manifestation because he was man by nature[1]. As regards the manhood he is not divine by nature but by manifestation[2].
But this is not all that is to be said; for the manhood in Christ, according to Nestorius, has really through the union with the Logos become something which it would not be otherwise. The man in Christ has the πρόσωπον of the son of God not only in the sense we have already discussed. For when Nestorius says that the union took place in the πρόσωπον of the son[3], then this does not mean only that aspect of the interchange of the πρόσωπα, on account of which the manhood as really bore the πρόσωπον of the Logos as the latter took up the πρόσωπον of the man[4]. Here a new idea is to be noticed. Although—so Nestorius says—the Logos was the son of God even before the incarnation, nevertheless after having taken on the manhood, he can no more alone be called the sow, lest ive should assert the existence of two sons[5]. The manhood has become the son of God because of the son, united with it[6]. Again and again Nestorius repeats that two sons of God was not his doctrine.
- ↑ B. 349 = N. 224.
- ↑ B. 288 = N. 182.
- ↑ B. 231 = N. 140.
- ↑ Comp. B. 331 = N. 211: A cause de celui qui l'a pris pour son prosôpon, celui qui a été pris obtient d'être le prosôpon de celui qui l'a pris.
- ↑ Nestoriana, p. 275, 1–5 (condensed).
- ↑ Nestoriana, p. 274, 17: υἱὸς διὰ τὸν συνημμένον υἱόν; Liber Heracl. B. 145 = N. 168: Cette humanité est dite le Fils de Dieu par l'union avec le Fils (et non par la nature); B. 80 = N. 51: … et il a
