On the Incarnation of the Lord (Against Nestorius)

He refutes the wicked and blasphemous notion of the heretics who said that God dwelt and spoke in Christ as in an instrument or a statue.

Otherwise, as the heretics say, God would be in the Lord Jesus Christ as in a statue or in an instrument, i.e., He would dwell as it were in a man and speak as it were through a man, and it would not be He who dwelt and spoke as God of Himself and in His own body: and certainly He had already thus dwelt in the saints and spoken in the persons of the saints. In those men too, of whom I spoke above, who had prayed for His advent, He had thus dwelt and spoken. And what need was there for all these to ask for what they already possessed, if they were seeking for what they had previously received? Or why should they long to see with their eyes what they were keeping in their hearts, especially as it is better for a man to have the same thing within himself than to see it outside? Or if God was to dwell in Christ in the same way as in all the saints, why should all the saints long to see Christ rather than themselves? And if they were only to see the same thing in Jesus Christ, which they themselves possessed, why should they not much rather prefer to have this in themselves than to see it in another? But you are wrong, you wretched madman, “not understanding,” as the Apostle says, “what you say and whereof you affirm”: for all the prophets and all the saints received from God some portion of the Divine Spirit as they were able to bear it. But in Christ “all the fullness of the Godhead” dwelt and “dwells bodily.” And therefore they all fall far short of His fullness, from whose fullness they receive something: for the fact that they are filled is the gift of Christ: because they would all certainly be empty, were He not the fullness of all.