G. R. Driver & L. Hodgson, The Bazaar of Heracleides, newly translated from the Syriac and edited with an introduction, notes & appendices. only surviving full-length work, the Bazaar of Heracleides.1 The publication of the Syriac text in , together with a French translation in the same year, is of. It is called indeed the Bazaar of Heracleides, for this is evident that it is the bazaar of spiritual knowledge; but it is not evident who Heracleides [was]. This is .

Author: Mishicage Nitaur
Country: Guatemala
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 22 March 2017
Pages: 464
PDF File Size: 7.52 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.75 Mb
ISBN: 115-5-73066-357-3
Downloads: 45732
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tozahn

Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides pp. Book 2 part 1. From the Records of the things which were done against me at Ephesus. Peter, priest of Alexandria and chief of the secretaries says: When then the reverend bishop heraceides Alexandria, Cyril, learned this, he wrote one letter and a second unto his reverence, full of counsels and warning; and in reply to these he wrote that he listened not, hardening himself and resisting the things which were written.

And withal again, when the reverend bishop, Cyril, learned that letters and books of his homilies had been sent by him to Rome, he also wrote to the pious bishop of the church of Rome, Celestinus, by the hand of the deacon Poseidonius, whom he commanded, [saying], “if thou findest that the books and heracledes homilies and the letters have been delivered, give also these things which have been written by me; but if not, bring them back hither without now delivering them. And those things which were proper, containing a well-known rule, were written by the pious [and] saintly bishop of the church of Rome, Celestinus.

Because then, by the injunction of the godly Emperor, your holy Council has met here, we necessarily inform you that we have in our hands the papers concerning these things, with a view to [doing] whatever is pleasing unto your Piety.

Cyril then is the persecutor and the accuser, while I am the persecuted; but it was the Council which heard and judged my words and the emperor who assembled [it]. If then he 1 was on the bench of judges, what indeed shall I say of the bench of judges? He was the whole tribunal, for everything which he said they all said together, and without doubt it is certain that he in person took the place of a tribunal for them. For if all the judges had been assembled and the accusers had risen in their place and the accused also likewise, all of them would equally have had freedom of speech, instead of his being in everything both accuser and emperor and judge.

He did all things with authority, after excluding from authority him 2 who had been charged by the emperor, and he exalted himself; and he assembled all those whom he wanted, both those who were far off and those who were near, and he constituted himself the tribunal. And I was summoned by Cyril who had assembled the Council, even by Cyril who was the chief thereof.

And who was the accuser? Who was bishop of Rome?

Nestorius – Wikipedia

Cyril was the bishop of Alexandria and took the place of the holy and saintly bishop of Rome, Celestinus. For all those who were his [followers] read them and believe not that they happened so, and they doubt even about themselves, since they would rather trust things which happened in dreams than these, if they were thus as they did happen.

What need was there for bazzar Council, beracleides this man was everything? That these things then were so you will learn from what happened at Ephesus; for Memnon says that: Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, says: This great and holy Council has been patient enough, waiting for the coming of the ot bishops, who are expected to come.

Is it not evident even to the unintelligent that he was in everything?

The Bazaar Of Heracleides

By him then, who was busied in everything, I was summoned. And before what tribunal? They were unavoidably delayed these days, if not more, in order that they might rest from their hardship in heeacleides by road and by nazaar, both for hdracleides and for needful purposes and for the sake of visiting one another and those who were sick and were in need thereof, and especially because of those persons who were taking the place of those who were absent from the Council, in those things wherein constraint had been laid upon them.

Although it were indeed the day which was fixed and [on which] the convocation ought to have taken place, if anything were to happen so that it should be delayed, another additional day would rightly be granted, even as among men there are many causes which come upon them of necessity, so that things are not done in accordance with the strict provisions of the appointed period. But it was not the day of the convocation, but that of the coming; for the day of the convocation had been decreed by the authority of the Count.

Thou didst thyself usurp [that authority], in that in thy senseless boldness thou hadst confidence in those who would justify thee perversely. And he held a Council by himself, before the general Council and summoned those who participated not with him, that there might be a Council before the Council of bazar the bishops.

And heeacleides testified unto him that he should put no confidence in this Council, to which he summoned me also, even making use of violence, and of such violence and force that it would not be believed, were any one to heracleieds [it]; but it has been revealed by those who have written.

Seditious persons indeed filled the city with idle and turbulent men, who were assembled together by Memnon, bishop of Ephesus; and he was at their head and was making them run about armed in the city, in such wise that every one of us fled and hid himself and had resort to caution and saved himself in great fear, as it is also easy to learn from the language of those who were sent.

Hear now from the language of Juvenalius that these things were said. Juvenalius, bishop of Jerusalem, says: You see of how much tyranny I made use and how far I was liable to accusation, because, herxcleides the purpose of rescuing myself from the conspirators who rose up against me, I had need to post soldiers around herscleides house to guard me, that they might not come against me with violence and destroy me! Thou accusest me of posting soldiers around my house: From the fact that you reproach us with posting soldiers, it is clear that if they had not first been posted around me and been a wall for me, I should have been destroyed by violent men.


Were you assembled for the [end] for heracleidess you were summoned? You made the Council for yourselves and not for us; you expelled those men from the Council and of yourselves you acted for yourselves just as you wished, and you listened not unto those who called upon you not to hold a Council but to wait for the bishops who had baazaar summoned with you and who were nigh unto coming.

Now therefore for what purpose did you summon us after all this violence? Who will hold out and not weep when he remembers the wrongs which were [done] in Ephesus? It is well [that] they were against me and against my life and not for the sake of impiety! For I should not have had need of these words as touching a man who was capable of retribution og only as touching our Saviour Jesus Christ, who is a just judge and for whose sake I have been content even to endure patiently that the whole bodily frame of Christ may not be accused.

But now they invent [stories] concerning me, because I have not been able to be silent when I am accused on the subject of the dispensation on our behalf, so that of necessity I am excusing off and am persuading all men who say: But Theodotus first replied that bazqar had indeed had some conversation with me but had not told him 4 herqcleides conversation, and the latter asked him not concerning what his speech was, in order that he might judge both conversations as a judge and accept the one and reject the other as having evidently fallen into impiety; but it was enough for heracleifes only that [there should be] an accusation.

Theodotus, bishop of Ancyra, says: They have not examined these things as judges, nor further has he spoken as before examiners and judges, but he stood forth as the witness of a judge-accuser. And he 5 accepted it without examination as a judge-accuser, without asking him anything, either: Wait; speak before us that we may know in what sense he has rejected these very things, in order that we may not accept without reason an accusation against him while he is far off and bazaa sentence against him without examination and without inquisition before those who need to learn herafleides for what reason heracleidws has been condemned.

Therefore, O Theodotus,thou bazqar conversed with himif then thou art accurately acquainted with his opinion, since thou hast questioned him and he has oof answer unto thee, [thou knowest that] he says: Does he say [this] unto thee, as one who says that Christ is not God, that he was two or three months old, or does he confess that Christ is God but was not as Hedacleides born nor [as God] became two or three months old?

Thou 7 then, [dost thou confess] that God was born of a woman and that he was two or three months old, as though his own ousia were changed into the ousia of a man and he was born and became two or three months old, or [was he as] one who was changed in his likeness and in his schema into the likeness and into the schema of a man by means of the ousia and that Christ is to be conceived in the one ousia of God and not in two ousias; and if in two, heeracleides thou explain] in what way two [issued] from the owe ousia of God the Word?

Or [was he formed] of two distinct and unlike ousias and was he born with both of them? Or was he born one of these and did it become two or three months old, as though it had not existed before it was born and bazxar two or three months old? Or was he born by adoption of the ousia in the birth of the flesh?

For if he 8 had thus been questioned, he would have confessed of necessity what he said before the Eastern bishops, when he was questioned in writingthat the Only-begotten Son of God created and was created, the same but not in the same [ ousia ]; the Son of God suffered and suffered not, the same but not in the same [ jeracleides ]; for [some] of these things are in the nature of the divinity and [others] of them in the nature of the humanity.

Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides () pp Book 1 Part 2.

He suffered all human things in the humanity and all divine things in the divinity; for birth from a woman is human but birth from the Father is without beginning, whereas the former [is] in the beginning, and the one is eternal while the other is temporal. But hear these things, howbeit not as though I were speaking. He dares not speak openly of what he says nor establish from the Divine Scriptures nor from the fathers what they have spoken nor how they have spoken.

Nor again was he constrained to agree to what he had said nor to set it down in writing. But it is right to tell what I consider to be the truth. He 10 was the first to withhold it in order that they 11 might not know all the conversation and all the inquiry which was [held] by us, recounting those things against which they could not say aught. For this reason they wrote them not down, not even in the Records, except only ‘it was not right to say of God that he was suckled nor that he was merely born of a virgin’.

They made examination [only] as far as was pleasing unto them; but we will indeed speak of these things presently. After him came Acacius and recounted unto them the conversation which he had with me and which was considered by them [to contain] impossible things. But he recounted his question, accusing me and not by way of reprimand nor sincerely by means of those things wherein he was confident; but they accepted his questions as accusations.

But when I had delayed ten or twelve days, when again some discussion had been raised between us, I began to speak on behalf of the correct faith and I saw that he held what was contrary to this, and I perceived that he had fallen into two wrongs simultaneously.


First indeed [in] his own question which was improper; he imposed on those who returned answer the necessity of either denying entirely that the divinity of the Only-begotten became incarnate or of confessing what is an impietythat both the divinity of the Father and that of the Holy Spirit were found in body with the Word.

Would any one suppose that it was an [act of] oppression, when they have written down these things in their Records and make all the world testify against themselves? For suppose that my question was absurd: Yet although, like the other, thou hast not corrected me, let us grant that thou hast not fallen into this absurdity voluntarily or involuntarily: But thou dost not utter it nor do the judges even require it.

And if it is so absurd, how has it been left unconfuted, in such wise as not to be confuted by all your Council? But on account of your incapacity you remained in darkness, so that you were not even able to see things which were evident. But God rather helped you in your interrogation to write down these things that it might be evident unto all men that the enmity was without cause. But from what can this be proved?

From those things which they have set down in [their] cunning writings, in the judgement without condemnation. From now hear those things wherein they have placed the deposit of the faith of our fathers who were assembled at Nicaca, on two of which we shall rely as on testimonies which will not be declined by him; and we shall make use of them both against them, whether they act by examination, or in the likeness of those who accept them without examination, because they are the judges and they are the judged, like those who account themselves judges in fables and stories.

Observe then first who reduces and takes away from the deposit which has been laid down by the fathers, but lets not [anyone else] steal aught therefrom. This man 15 [it is] who has made no mention of the beginning and avoided the beginning and made a beginning which they laid not down but in this wise passed over the beginning and wished not to make a beginning therefrom, whereas [it is] I who have established the things which the fathers rightly said, and I said that we would make a beginning from here showing also the cause wherefore they first laid down the names which are common to the divinity and the humanity and then built up thereon the tradition of the Incarnation and of the Sufferings and of the Resurrection, ‘first laying down the names of the two natures which indicate that these are common, without the Sonship or the Lordship being separated and without the natures, in the union of the Sonship, coming into danger of corruption and of confusion.

Was it because thou didst suppose that it was the same and people ought not to speak thus, but that it was enough for them to begin thence whence thou didst begin and didst make a beginning and correct them?

But those [fathers] anathematize those who make additions or diminutions, but they have done improperly and not according to the opinion of the fathers. But he gave a contrary explanation when I said unto him that ‘this is the beginning and thence rather ought we to begin whence I have admonished thee’. But he was disputing against me as though in his wisdom he baxaar teaching all men lest through their heravleides they should fall short of this impiety.

For heracleices reason then, when thou didst lay down the faith, didst thou also baaaar begin from here whence they began as touching that which was under inquiry? Thou allowest these things [to pass] as superfluous and thou makest a beginning after them, as they do; and thou transferrest from the one unto the other all those things of which Christ is naturally [formed] and said.

And since the Christ of the fathers is the opposite of thine, thou hast declined to acknowledge him and thou sayest with me, though thou wishest not, that Christ is in two natures but that God the Word is not in two natures. But hear [an extract] from what he has written unto me, that you may know that bazzar is nothing just in him but that he is arranging in everything that there may not be a judgement and an examination, which would make known his enmity toward me, which was not on account of the faith.

Diverse are the natures which have come unto a true union; but from them both [there has resulted] one Christ and Son, not because the diversity in the natures has been abolished by reason of the union, but because they have perfected for us rather one Lord and Messiah and Son. Who is he who was born of the Father only-begotten? Our Lord Jesus Christ.

God from God and Light of Light, Very God of Very God, born and not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all that is in heaven and in earth was [made].

Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides — now online

Bazzar is this and of whom? Of the Father, ‘Very God of Very Heracleidss, born and not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all was [made], who on account of us men and on account of our salvation came down.

Tell me and him and all men, O fathers. Him we teach you and none other, who ‘on account of us men and on account of our salvation came down and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, who also was made man’. Thus far, then, that ‘He came down, was made flesh and was made man’, they have taught us about those things which concern the divinity of Christ: That which his Mother also was, of whom the passible flesh was born. And ‘He suffered and rose on the third day and ascended into heaven and will come to judge the living and the dead’.