The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins, For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies 12
12 Chapter XII. A fuller account of the Errors of Photinus, Apollinaris and Nestorius PL 50, 654
[32.] Here, possibly, I may be asked for some account of the above mentioned heresies; those, namely, of Nestorius, Apollinaris, and Photinus. This, indeed, does not belong to the matter in hand: for our object is not to enlarge upon the errors of individuals, but to produce instances of a few, in whom the applicability of Moses’ words may be evidently and clearly seen; that is to say, that if at any time some Master in the Church, himself also a prophet in interpreting the mysteries of the prophets, should attempt to introduce some novel doctrine into the Church of God, Divine Providence permits this to happen in order to try us. It will be useful, therefore, by way of digression, to give a brief account of the opinions of the above-named heretics, Photinus, Apollinaris, Nestorius.
[33.] The heresy of Photinus, then, is as follows: He says that God is singular and sole, and is to be regarded as the Jews regarded Him. He denies the completeness of the Trinity, and does not believe that there is any Person of God the Word, or any Person of the Holy Ghost. Christ he affirms to be a mere man, whose original was from Mary. Hence he insists with the utmost obstinacy that we are to render worship only to the Person of God the Father, and that we are to honour Christ as man only. This is the doctrine of Photinus.
[34.] Apollinaris, affecting to agree with the Church as to the unity of the Trinity, though not this even with entire soundness of belief, as to the Incarnation of the Lord, blasphemes openly. For he says that the flesh of our Saviour was either altogether devoid of a human soul, or, at all events, was devoid of a rational soul. Moreover, he says that this same flesh of the Lord was not received from the flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, but came down from heaven into the Virgin; and, ever wavering and undecided, he preaches one while that it was co-eternal with God the Word, another that it was made of the divine nature of the Word. For, denying that there are two substances in Christ, one divine, the other human, one from the Father, the other from his mother, he holds that the very nature of the Word was divided, as though one part of it remained in God, the other was converted into flesh: so that whereas the truth says that of two substances there is one Christ, he affirms, contrary to the truth, that of the one divinity of Christ there are become two substances. This, then, is the doctrine of Apollinaris.
[35.] Nestorius, whose disease is of an opposite kind, while pretending that he holds two distinct substances in Christ, brings in of a sudden two Persons, and with unheard of wickedness would have two sons of God, two Christs,—one, God, the other, man, one, begotten of his Father, the other, born of his mother. For which reason he maintains that Saint Mary ought to be called, not Theotocos (the mother of God), but Christotocos (the mother of Christ), seeing that she gave birth not to the Christ who is God, but to the Christ who is man. But if any one supposes that in his writings he speaks of one Christ, and preaches one Person of Christ, let him not lightly credit it. For either this is a crafty device, that by means of good he may the more easily persuade evil, according to that of the apostle, “That which is good was made death to me,”—either, I say, he craftily affects in some places in his writings to believe one Christ and one Person of Christ, or else he says that after the Virgin had brought forth, the two Persons were united into one Christ, though at the time of her conception or parturition, and for some short time afterwards, there were two Christs; so that forsooth, though Christ was born at first an ordinary man and nothing more, and not as yet associated in unity of Person with the Word of God, yet afterwards the Person of the Word assuming descended upon Him; and though now the Person assumed remains in the glory of God, yet once there would seem to have been no difference between Him and all other men.
Hic a me forsitan deposcatur ut horum quos supra commemoravi haereses exponam, Nestorii scilicet, Apollinaris, et Photini. Hoc quidem ad rem de qua nunc agimus non attinet. Propositum etenim nobis est, non singulorum errores persequi, sed paucorum exempla proferre, quibus evidenter ac perspicue demonstretur illud quod Moyses ait, quia scilicet si quando Ecclesiasticus aliquis magister, et ipse interpretandis prophetarum mysteriis propheta, novi quiddam in Ecclesiam Dei tentet inducere, ad tentationem id nostram fieri Providentia divina patiatur. Utile igitur fuerit, in excursu, quid supra memorati haeretici sentiant breviter exponere, id est, Photinus, Apollinaris, Nestorius. Photini ergo secta haec est. Dicit Deum singulum esse et solitarium, et more Judaico confitendum. Trinitatis plenitudinem negat, neque ullam Dei Verbi aut ullam Spiritus sancti putat esse personam. Christum vero hominem tantummodo solitarium adserit, cui principium adscribit ex Maria: et hoc omnimodis dogmatizat, solam nos personam Dei Patris et solum Christum hominem colere debere. Haec ergo Photinus. Apollinaris vero in unitate quidem Trinitatis quasi consentire se jactitat, et hoc ipsum non plena fidei sanitate; sed in Domini incarnatione aperta professione blasphemat. Dicit enim in ipsa Salvatoris nostri carne aut animam humanam penitus non fuisse, aut certè talem fuisse cui mens et ratio non esset. Sed et ipsam Domini carnem non de sanctae Virginis Mariae carne susceptam, sed de coelo in Virginem descendisse dicebat; eamque nutabundus semper et dubius modo coaeternam Deo Verbo, modo de Verbi divinitate factam praedicabat. Nolebat enim in Christo esse duas substantias, unam divinam, alteram humanam, unam ex Patre, alteram ex matre; sed ipsam Verbi naturam putabat esse discissam, quasi aliud ejus permaneret in Deo, aliud vero versum fuisset in carnem; ut cum veritas dicat ex duabus substantiis unum esse Christum, ille contrarius veritati ex una Christi divinitate duas adserat factas esse substantias. Haec itaque Apollinaris. Nestorius autem contrario Apollinari morbo, dum sese duas in Christo substantias distinguere simulat, duas introducit repente personas, et inaudito scelere duos esse vult filios Dei, duos Christos, unum Deum, alterum hominem, unum qui ex Patre, alterum qui sit generatus ex matre. Atque ideo asserit sanctam Mariam non Theotocon, sed Christotocon esse dicendam: quia scilicet ex ea non ille Christus qui Deus, sed ille qui erat homo, natus sit. Quod si quis eum putat in litteris suis unum Christum dicere et unam Christi praedicare personam, non temere credat. Aut enim istud fallendi arte machinatus est, ut per bona facilius suaderet et mala, sicut ait Apostolus: Per bonum mihi operatus est mortem, Rom. 7. Aut ergo, ut diximus, fraudulentiae causa quibusdam in locis scriptorum suorum unum Christum et unam Christi personam credere se jactitat, aut certe post partum jam Virginis ita in unum Christum duas perhibet convenisse personas, ut tamen conceptus seu partus Virginei tempore, et aliquantò posteà duos Christos fuisse contendat; ut cum scilicet Christus homo communis primum et solitarius natus sit, et necdum Dei Verbo personae unitate sociatus, postea in eum adsumentis Verbi persona descenderit; et licet nunc in Dei gloria maneat adsumptus, aliquandiu tamen nihil inter illum et caeteros homines interfuisse videatur.