καθ’ ὑπόστασιν the union in the πρόσωπον of Christ, then I agree with you[1]. And with the formulas which he saw proposed by Flavian of Constantinople[2] or found in Leo's letter to Flavian[3] he showed himself well contented[4].
Thus apologising for himself, Nestorius was not fortunate in his own time but he is in our time. For Professor Bethune-Baker has in his book on Nestorius and his teaching a particular chapter with the heading: "Two persons not the teaching of Nestorius[5]," and here we find Professor Bethune-Baker asserting: "It is impossible to doubt that Nestorius was clear in his own mind that his doctrine of the incarnation safeguarded absolutely the unity of the subject. He did not think of two distinct persons joined together, but of a single person, who combined in Himself the two distinct substances, Godhead and manhood, with their characteristics (natures) complete and intact though united in Him[6]." Of course Professor Bethune-Baker does not fail to recognise that the use of the term πρόσωπον in Nestorius is somewhat "puzzling[7]," but nevertheless,
- ↑ Liber Heracl. B. 229 = N. 138 (condensed translation).
- ↑ Comp. Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 3rd edition, § 223, p. 321: ἐν δύο φύσεσιν … ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει καὶ ἐν ἑνὶ προσώπῳ ἕνα Χριστόν, ἕνα υἱόν, ἕνα κύριον ὁμολογοῦμεν.
- ↑ Hahn, l.c. § 224, pp. 321–330; unitas personae in utraque natura intelligenda (c. 5, p. 326).
- ↑ Comp. above, p. 22 and 25.
- ↑ pp. 82–100.
- ↑ l.c. p. 87.
- ↑ l.c. p. 97.
